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.
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.
They had the engineer's Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles. They knew he worked for Apple.
That was long after they got the iPhone - the phone was wiped, so I don't know how they connected it to him or his facebook BS. If anyone returns my iPhone to Apple after I wipe it with mobile me, I may not sue you - but you better hope I don't find you either.
DUI is 1 of 55 areas of criminal defense areas of law they list. Isn't your comment a distorted, discrediting implication?
As soon as analysis comes from a lawyer at a major law firm that regularly represents clients such as Apple and not random dudes in county jail, I'll take the analysis seriously.
This guy went to Pepperdine. Thus, hes a moron. If you were in the field, you would know this.
You make a good point, but Chinese knock-offs are usually either a total crap construction having nothing to do with any shipping Apple products (with a few Apple logos thrown on top), or hard to differentiate copies of existing/shipping Apple products (as in your pic).
The phone that was found was neither. The guy that found it also says that it had a working but unreleased iPhone OS on it as well as the name and Facebook info of the Apple engineer that dropped it.
No, but you said you had never seen one. Implying you either thought your limited knowledge of knockoffs would be shared by others or that because you hadn't seen them they don't exist.
neither makes sense, but I will leave it to you to expand on your comment of never seeing a counterfeit and what you actually meant.
So what you are saying is that if I buy a phone from someone who actually states that it is not his, I am not committing a crime simply because that guy might be lying. wow that is great
Ah, no. You completely missed my point. I said nothing about that, nor did I intend to.
Let me make some things clear, and then I'll elaborate more on what I said above: First, I don't care one way or the other about what Gizmodo, the person who found this phone or the Apple employee alleged to have lost it did. If they have to answer to anyone, that's between them and the other person, law, or company. It's none of my business.
Was any of this illegal? I don't know and have not cared to speculate. What I'd say about it if pressed to do so matters little and I'm not a lawyer anyway. Nor do I care to play one.
So now that I've explained those two things, let me turn back to your response and clarify my meaning. What I tried to say was that "you cannot judge a book by its cover" by pointing out the existence of counterfeit products bearing the iPhone trademark. Nothing more and nothing less. The response was intended to be humorous and to point out the relative level of absurdity exhibited by the person to whom I was responding. You did notice the big green smiley, right?
It doesn't sound like the guy made too much of an effort to return the thing.
I definitely think most "honest" people would have returned a lost wallet or purse to the bar or contacted the bar or the police.
The guy's excuse was that he didn't want anyone else to "profit" instead of him. Not exactly a winning defense. That's like saying I stole the unchained bicycle because somebody else would just have stolen it.
And paying for a phone you knew that somebody found in a bar who in turn knew that another person had left it behind is knowingly purchasing stolen goods.
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.
- I did take ownership. I bought a new phone. 3 times. It was my fault. As it was Apple's. Oops. Karma.
- Insurance from another source? You're funny. Unlike most cell phone companies for almost 2 decades, they don't cover loss.
- Maybe you refer to "property" in the 20th century use of the word. You do apparently know about this new invention called the internet. There's another thing called GPS. Maybe Apple should have bought MobileMe for the sole purpose of tracking their phone (which I have since done).
You are such a lawyer. Yes, I want them to buy me a new phone every time I lose mine. How about disable the account when the phone is reported lost/stolen?? K-A-R-M-A.
Either that, or you're a blinded Apple fanboy (fanboy I am, but blinded I am not).
Red herring -the perp (not finder), first, took off a '3gs cover' in silicon valley(not china) and then obtained the employees name and facebook id. Knew he worked at Apple, and then so did Gizmo. Even claiming to make (very weak) attempt to contact Apple.
Gizmo, claiming it 'may be' a knockoff is illogical and un reasonable at this point. Once they both new that it was an Apple employee, fake 3GS cover... end of story... their duty (as ethical human beings) was clear. Drive to One Infinity Drive and turn it in. Have video's, cameras blareing when you turn it in, but turn it in. The rest of this stuff Gizmo did was cheap and tawdry.
The difference between lost and stolen is significant in this matter. And I'm sure its going to be a court that decides it.
Either way, it doesn't look good for Gizmodo. They paid for something they thought to be Apple's property, exposed it callously, and profited from it, off a great deal of ad revenue. I believe their comments are still down from all the traffic they received and are no doubt still receiving. Great week for ad revenue.
You make a good point, but Chinese knock-offs are usually either a total crap construction having nothing to do with any shipping Apple products (with a few Apple logos thrown on top), or hard to differentiate copies of existing/shipping Apple products (as in your pic).
The phone that was found was neither. The guy that found it also says that it had a working but unreleased iPhone OS on it as well as the name and Facebook info of the Apple engineer that dropped it.
But by the time Gizmodo got their hands on it, it was disabled. So how could they have known (except to open it up)?
While a previous report from Gizmodo said the person who found the device attempted to return it directly to Apple, the finder never contacted the owner of the Gourmet Haus Staudt bar, nor the local authorities, according to Jeff Bercovici of Daily Finance. Both Volcker Staudt, owner of the bar, and Sgt. Dan Mulholland of the Redwood City Police Department said they were not informed of the device.
Just one question for Sgt. Dan Mulholland, how many 'found cell phones' are reported to the Redwood City Police Department on an average year?
Also I'd be equally curious what the person answering the phone at the Redwood City Police Department would say to someone who found a cell phone. I do respect the law as well as the law enforcement agents but when you call them with extremely trivial issues they usually sound quite anxious to end the phone call.
do you think that giz would have paid five grand for a knockoff? you know, to determine the proper owner? wow, those guys are awesome! i applaud their good intentions! who needs insurance when gizmodo is on the case!
That was long after they got the iPhone - the phone was wiped, so I don't know how they connected it to him or his facebook BS. If anyone returns my iPhone to Apple after I wipe it with mobile me, I may not sue you - but you better hope I don't find you either.
The person who sold the phone to Gizmodo checked the engineer's Facebook app before the phone was remote wiped.
The owner of the phone was known and it was known that he worked for Apple before Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the phone.
Hmmm....well, the engineer certainly thinks he left it in the bar. That would be why he went home and called back later. if he was being as careful as he should have been with this top secret device, he would have known if it was on his person when he left the bar. It was not. No police report was filed, by the person or Apple, that something was stolen.
There is nothing that implies it was stolen from the engineer. At all. period. What happened after that is questionable. The finder should have given it to the bartender. That way the bartender could have brought it home and played with it and sold it to a local pawnshop. He shouldn't have sold it to Giz. But then, what is so different in his selling it than when airports have big sales on their lost and found 'inventory'? Shouldn't they instead pass all found goods to the local PD?
There is reason to believe that the transaction of the finder selling it to Giz was illegal. But there is no reason to believe it was stolen from the Apple Employee.
Just because the owner isn't around doesn't make it not stealing. It should have been left at the Venue to be anything else. If you were to put your bike in a bike rack and it was gone when you came back that is stealing even though you were not around. As much as it was nice to see what was coming, Apple should sue Gizmodo for this. If they wanted to snap a photo in the bar then fine. It was in a public place. But they went too far.
Speaking as an Apple stockholder, I want one of two things:
1. I want Apple to sue Gizmodo blue, or;
2. I want other Apple shareholders to join me in a class action suit against Gizmodo. And here's why:
The MINUTE they opened up the phone and determined that it was in fact a prototype Apple iPhone, they should have clammed up.
But that's not what they did. Instead, they took pictures of the proprietary mechanisms and published them on the internet. In other words, they knowingly distributed intellectual property belonging to Apple AFTER THEY KNEW WHO THE OWNER WAS.
As a result, all of Apple's competitors were made privy to where Apple was heading months before they would otherwise have been.
That damages Apple, consequently damaging Apple's stock, and consequently damaging me.
No, but you said you had never seen one. Implying you either thought your limited knowledge of knockoffs would be shared by others or that because you hadn't seen them they don't exist.
neither makes sense, but I will leave it to you to expand on your comment of never seeing a counterfeit and what you actually meant.
Okay, okay. You questioned whether I had ever personally seen a knockoff (that was similar enough to a real iPhone for me to feign ignorance - as Mr. Denton did), and I simply answered that I have not. But this has nothing to do with being a good knockoff or not - because the prototype doesn't even look similar to any iPhone currently on the market. Which I guess is what I should've said instead of pursuing sarcasm My point was simply that Gawker certainly had enough clues to conclude they should've returned the phone to Apple, or at the very least to Mr. Powell himself, before publishing a teardown.
A story simply about Apple and an employee losing a valuable prototype would've been slightly less intriguing, but far more ethical and honest in my opinion. And that $5K could've been an investment in respect from their readership and possibly even goodwill from one Apple employee.
Comments
hmmm....I guess they don't exist then.
If you say so. Your words, not mine.
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.
Righteous indignation only takes one so far.
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.
They had the engineer's Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles. They knew he worked for Apple.
That was long after they got the iPhone - the phone was wiped, so I don't know how they connected it to him or his facebook BS. If anyone returns my iPhone to Apple after I wipe it with mobile me, I may not sue you - but you better hope I don't find you either.
DUI is 1 of 55 areas of criminal defense areas of law they list. Isn't your comment a distorted, discrediting implication?
As soon as analysis comes from a lawyer at a major law firm that regularly represents clients such as Apple and not random dudes in county jail, I'll take the analysis seriously.
This guy went to Pepperdine. Thus, hes a moron. If you were in the field, you would know this.
This is a fake iPhone.
You were saying?
You make a good point, but Chinese knock-offs are usually either a total crap construction having nothing to do with any shipping Apple products (with a few Apple logos thrown on top), or hard to differentiate copies of existing/shipping Apple products (as in your pic).
The phone that was found was neither. The guy that found it also says that it had a working but unreleased iPhone OS on it as well as the name and Facebook info of the Apple engineer that dropped it.
If you say so. Your words, not mine.
No, but you said you had never seen one. Implying you either thought your limited knowledge of knockoffs would be shared by others or that because you hadn't seen them they don't exist.
neither makes sense, but I will leave it to you to expand on your comment of never seeing a counterfeit and what you actually meant.
So what you are saying is that if I buy a phone from someone who actually states that it is not his, I am not committing a crime simply because that guy might be lying. wow that is great
Ah, no. You completely missed my point. I said nothing about that, nor did I intend to.
Let me make some things clear, and then I'll elaborate more on what I said above: First, I don't care one way or the other about what Gizmodo, the person who found this phone or the Apple employee alleged to have lost it did. If they have to answer to anyone, that's between them and the other person, law, or company. It's none of my business.
Was any of this illegal? I don't know and have not cared to speculate. What I'd say about it if pressed to do so matters little and I'm not a lawyer anyway. Nor do I care to play one.
So now that I've explained those two things, let me turn back to your response and clarify my meaning. What I tried to say was that "you cannot judge a book by its cover" by pointing out the existence of counterfeit products bearing the iPhone trademark. Nothing more and nothing less. The response was intended to be humorous and to point out the relative level of absurdity exhibited by the person to whom I was responding. You did notice the big green smiley, right?
I definitely think most "honest" people would have returned a lost wallet or purse to the bar or contacted the bar or the police.
The guy's excuse was that he didn't want anyone else to "profit" instead of him. Not exactly a winning defense. That's like saying I stole the unchained bicycle because somebody else would just have stolen it.
And paying for a phone you knew that somebody found in a bar who in turn knew that another person had left it behind is knowingly purchasing stolen goods.
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.
- I did take ownership. I bought a new phone. 3 times. It was my fault. As it was Apple's. Oops. Karma.
- Insurance from another source? You're funny. Unlike most cell phone companies for almost 2 decades, they don't cover loss.
- Maybe you refer to "property" in the 20th century use of the word. You do apparently know about this new invention called the internet. There's another thing called GPS. Maybe Apple should have bought MobileMe for the sole purpose of tracking their phone (which I have since done).
You are such a lawyer. Yes, I want them to buy me a new phone every time I lose mine. How about disable the account when the phone is reported lost/stolen?? K-A-R-M-A.
Either that, or you're a blinded Apple fanboy (fanboy I am, but blinded I am not).
This is a fake iPhone.
http://www.cultofmac.com/marvel-at-t...-perfect/12286
You were saying?
Red herring -the perp (not finder), first, took off a '3gs cover' in silicon valley(not china) and then obtained the employees name and facebook id. Knew he worked at Apple, and then so did Gizmo. Even claiming to make (very weak) attempt to contact Apple.
Gizmo, claiming it 'may be' a knockoff is illogical and un reasonable at this point. Once they both new that it was an Apple employee, fake 3GS cover... end of story... their duty (as ethical human beings) was clear. Drive to One Infinity Drive and turn it in. Have video's, cameras blareing when you turn it in, but turn it in. The rest of this stuff Gizmo did was cheap and tawdry.
Either way, it doesn't look good for Gizmodo. They paid for something they thought to be Apple's property, exposed it callously, and profited from it, off a great deal of ad revenue. I believe their comments are still down from all the traffic they received and are no doubt still receiving. Great week for ad revenue.
But it won't be such a great day in court.
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle
DUI is 1 of 55 areas of criminal defense areas of law they list. Isn't your comment a distorted, discrediting implication?
...
This guy went to Pepperdine. Thus, hes a moron. If you were in the field, you would know this.
Thanks. I believe you answered my point.
You make a good point, but Chinese knock-offs are usually either a total crap construction having nothing to do with any shipping Apple products (with a few Apple logos thrown on top), or hard to differentiate copies of existing/shipping Apple products (as in your pic).
The phone that was found was neither. The guy that found it also says that it had a working but unreleased iPhone OS on it as well as the name and Facebook info of the Apple engineer that dropped it.
But by the time Gizmodo got their hands on it, it was disabled. So how could they have known (except to open it up)?
I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...
Or maybe met pick pocket in the bar?
While a previous report from Gizmodo said the person who found the device attempted to return it directly to Apple, the finder never contacted the owner of the Gourmet Haus Staudt bar, nor the local authorities, according to Jeff Bercovici of Daily Finance. Both Volcker Staudt, owner of the bar, and Sgt. Dan Mulholland of the Redwood City Police Department said they were not informed of the device.
Just one question for Sgt. Dan Mulholland, how many 'found cell phones' are reported to the Redwood City Police Department on an average year?
Also I'd be equally curious what the person answering the phone at the Redwood City Police Department would say to someone who found a cell phone. I do respect the law as well as the law enforcement agents but when you call them with extremely trivial issues they usually sound quite anxious to end the phone call.
Never seen a knockoff, have you?
do you think that giz would have paid five grand for a knockoff? you know, to determine the proper owner? wow, those guys are awesome! i applaud their good intentions! who needs insurance when gizmodo is on the case!
That was long after they got the iPhone - the phone was wiped, so I don't know how they connected it to him or his facebook BS. If anyone returns my iPhone to Apple after I wipe it with mobile me, I may not sue you - but you better hope I don't find you either.
The person who sold the phone to Gizmodo checked the engineer's Facebook app before the phone was remote wiped.
The owner of the phone was known and it was known that he worked for Apple before Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the phone.
Hmmm....well, the engineer certainly thinks he left it in the bar. That would be why he went home and called back later. if he was being as careful as he should have been with this top secret device, he would have known if it was on his person when he left the bar. It was not. No police report was filed, by the person or Apple, that something was stolen.
There is nothing that implies it was stolen from the engineer. At all. period. What happened after that is questionable. The finder should have given it to the bartender. That way the bartender could have brought it home and played with it and sold it to a local pawnshop. He shouldn't have sold it to Giz. But then, what is so different in his selling it than when airports have big sales on their lost and found 'inventory'? Shouldn't they instead pass all found goods to the local PD?
There is reason to believe that the transaction of the finder selling it to Giz was illegal. But there is no reason to believe it was stolen from the Apple Employee.
Just because the owner isn't around doesn't make it not stealing. It should have been left at the Venue to be anything else. If you were to put your bike in a bike rack and it was gone when you came back that is stealing even though you were not around. As much as it was nice to see what was coming, Apple should sue Gizmodo for this. If they wanted to snap a photo in the bar then fine. It was in a public place. But they went too far.
1. I want Apple to sue Gizmodo blue, or;
2. I want other Apple shareholders to join me in a class action suit against Gizmodo. And here's why:
The MINUTE they opened up the phone and determined that it was in fact a prototype Apple iPhone, they should have clammed up.
But that's not what they did. Instead, they took pictures of the proprietary mechanisms and published them on the internet. In other words, they knowingly distributed intellectual property belonging to Apple AFTER THEY KNEW WHO THE OWNER WAS.
As a result, all of Apple's competitors were made privy to where Apple was heading months before they would otherwise have been.
That damages Apple, consequently damaging Apple's stock, and consequently damaging me.
No, but you said you had never seen one. Implying you either thought your limited knowledge of knockoffs would be shared by others or that because you hadn't seen them they don't exist.
neither makes sense, but I will leave it to you to expand on your comment of never seeing a counterfeit and what you actually meant.
Okay, okay. You questioned whether I had ever personally seen a knockoff (that was similar enough to a real iPhone for me to feign ignorance - as Mr. Denton did), and I simply answered that I have not. But this has nothing to do with being a good knockoff or not - because the prototype doesn't even look similar to any iPhone currently on the market. Which I guess is what I should've said instead of pursuing sarcasm
A story simply about Apple and an employee losing a valuable prototype would've been slightly less intriguing, but far more ethical and honest in my opinion. And that $5K could've been an investment in respect from their readership and possibly even goodwill from one Apple employee.