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.
I'm with you on this one..it's one thing to do it for the story..but all of what you said there is true--plus the fact that they paid $5,000 for the device just stinks to high heaven. I still refuse to believe this is the final design of the product anyway, but we'll see. The fact was that the phone was gone for a while--the guy that found it found the owner's facebook page, so he had all the knowledge he needed to return it. A reasonable effort isn't calling an apple call center--it would be calling corporate, saying " I have an iPhone that i KNOW belongs to an Apple employee, and I think it might be a prototype." At that point, even if Apple refused to take it because they thought it was a hoax, he knew who it belonged to, and still sold it for $5,000. We'll see what happens in June...
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!
You know otherwise? Obviously they felt there was chance it was legit and is so, well worth $5k to see. if it was a fake, well $5k out the door and a great story to tell.
And in either of those case, yes, they would return it to Apple upon confirmation from Apple.
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.
Gizmodo has no fiduciary or contractual relationship to Apple requiring it to clam up.
Good luck with your lawsuit! I believe there's a criminal defense lawyer, a graduate of the fine law school of Pepperdine that's willing to take the case!
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.
Bad analogy. A bike in a rack cannot be considered lost. That is just a bad analogy.
The finder is under no obligation to hand it to the proprietor of the bar. They do have responsibilities, but that is not one of them.
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.
Find a lawyer. He will patiently explain why you have no case.
I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...
If you are one entrusted with a prototype of the next gen iPhone, then you should be treating it the same way you would treat the winning Powerball ticket. No way in hell you'd leave THAT behind on a stool. You'd have it in your pocket or in your hand - under your explicit control - 24/7 until you cashed it in.
That this guy made such a mistake is unfathomable to me. No sympathy here.
Bad analogy. A bike in a rack cannot be considered lost. That is just a bad analogy.
The finder is under no obligation to hand it to the proprietor of the bar. They do have responsibilities, but that is not one of them.
It is a bad analogy, because leaving a bike at a back rack presents an intention of securing the bike - unlike leaving a bike laying in an open field.
But even for lost (or unattended) property U.S. common law defines that the interests of someone who finds lost property are always subordinate to the interests of the owner. Which basically translates into we are responsible for doing whatever we can within reason to return lost property to its owner, except for specific state law that might supersede that common law. And specifically for California, their law defines that responsibility as delivering lost property to police or local authorities.
Certainly going even further and selling or purchasing that property as a person who is aware the property is lost, without the consent of the owner - is a big no-no. And I can't wait to hear Gawker try to claim precedents from journalism. Because their mistake here was not the act of reporting/blogging, but the actions which they reported/blogged about.
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.
perhaps get the executive team kicked out of their positions for failing to appropriately safeguard Apple IP by allowing staff to take devices off-site.
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.
You do realize that fake iPhones would also have the size in GB printed on the back, to make it look as real as possible to fool the consumer. The prototype iPhone had XXGB instead of an actual number to indicate the capacity. Also, a fake iPhone would not be contained in a plastic case to make it look like a previous model.
Wow, there is a surprising number of self-righteous but misinformed people posting about what constitutes "theft".
Can you imagine if every found item were turned over to the police? The police department would be spending half of their time running a lost-and-found department. But this is only part of the reasoning for why found property isn't required to be turned over to law enforcement.
The other issue is that this would prohibit giving the item back to an alleged owner. Is the finder liable for identifying the correct owner? And at what point should they just turn it over to that person rather than the police? Or perhaps the owner of the property on which it was found? Is an employee of the owner sufficient? What if the event is on rented property. Etc... etc... etc...
The point is that the law is purposefully vague on the issue in most jurisdictions. Most require something along the lines of: a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and to allow the owner to pick it up.
Or at least that is my understanding of why the law doesn't require every found item to be turned over to a third party, including law enforcement. It would be almost impossible to fairly enforce.
But yes, i'm not a lawyer, not even close.
With that said, there are plenty of establishments that I frequent where turning over a found item to the hourly-wage wait staff would almost certainly ensure it not getting back to the owner. Instead, it was better to track down the owner personally. For example, I managed to return an iPod touch found at bar/music-venue. Would it have made it home if turned over to the the bartender or bouncer? Maybe, maybe not.
Similarly, I lost a phone while biking in a park 20 miles from home. Thankfully, someone found it in the middle of the woods, called "dad" and I was reunited with it by the end of the day. Had it been turned over to the park service, I may have never got it back. Same for if it had been turned over to the police.
Gizmodo has no fiduciary or contractual relationship to Apple requiring it to clam up.
Good luck with your lawsuit! I believe there's a criminal defense lawyer, a graduate of the fine law school of Pepperdine that's willing to take the case!
Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
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.
You don't really understand the stock market, do you? You want to do a class action lawsuit because Apple's stock has INCREASED by $14 per share today? Really? Explain to everyone again how you were damaged by this? Maybe you should check the stock market first before making such a comment.
This did not disclose anything different that rumor sites already reported on, including AppleInsider. Maybe you should sue AppleInsider for leaking Apple information too. Apple's competitors have always had higher resolution cameras and built-in flashes on their phones long before Apple decided to incorporate them. Oh, and did you know Apple already spilled the beans on iPhone OS 4.0? Did you know that Apple was already planning on releasing a new phone this summer? Did you know that a higher resolution display and a camera are not secrets? Did you know that in 2007, Apple gave a full preview of the phone six months before its release? None of these events damage Apple's stock.
Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
If you are an 'injured party' (not sure how, but let's say, in your world you feel you are), then sue.
Comments
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.
I'm with you on this one..it's one thing to do it for the story..but all of what you said there is true--plus the fact that they paid $5,000 for the device just stinks to high heaven. I still refuse to believe this is the final design of the product anyway, but we'll see. The fact was that the phone was gone for a while--the guy that found it found the owner's facebook page, so he had all the knowledge he needed to return it. A reasonable effort isn't calling an apple call center--it would be calling corporate, saying " I have an iPhone that i KNOW belongs to an Apple employee, and I think it might be a prototype." At that point, even if Apple refused to take it because they thought it was a hoax, he knew who it belonged to, and still sold it for $5,000. We'll see what happens in June...
Have a busy week so not able to chase a Great Story
Oh well
What does seem certain ...
.
This is the Best P.R. Stunt Apple has ever designed
Or
That Apple Tech is now "frantically searching" for a new job
.
-30-
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!
You know otherwise? Obviously they felt there was chance it was legit and is so, well worth $5k to see. if it was a fake, well $5k out the door and a great story to tell.
And in either of those case, yes, they would return it to Apple upon confirmation from Apple.
They really are awesome!
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.
Gizmodo has no fiduciary or contractual relationship to Apple requiring it to clam up.
Good luck with your lawsuit! I believe there's a criminal defense lawyer, a graduate of the fine law school of Pepperdine that's willing to take the case!
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.
Bad analogy. A bike in a rack cannot be considered lost. That is just a bad analogy.
The finder is under no obligation to hand it to the proprietor of the bar. They do have responsibilities, but that is not one of them.
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.
Find a lawyer. He will patiently explain why you have no case.
I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...
If you are one entrusted with a prototype of the next gen iPhone, then you should be treating it the same way you would treat the winning Powerball ticket. No way in hell you'd leave THAT behind on a stool. You'd have it in your pocket or in your hand - under your explicit control - 24/7 until you cashed it in.
That this guy made such a mistake is unfathomable to me. No sympathy here.
Thompson
Bad analogy. A bike in a rack cannot be considered lost. That is just a bad analogy.
The finder is under no obligation to hand it to the proprietor of the bar. They do have responsibilities, but that is not one of them.
It is a bad analogy, because leaving a bike at a back rack presents an intention of securing the bike - unlike leaving a bike laying in an open field.
But even for lost (or unattended) property U.S. common law defines that the interests of someone who finds lost property are always subordinate to the interests of the owner. Which basically translates into we are responsible for doing whatever we can within reason to return lost property to its owner, except for specific state law that might supersede that common law. And specifically for California, their law defines that responsibility as delivering lost property to police or local authorities.
Certainly going even further and selling or purchasing that property as a person who is aware the property is lost, without the consent of the owner - is a big no-no. And I can't wait to hear Gawker try to claim precedents from journalism. Because their mistake here was not the act of reporting/blogging, but the actions which they reported/blogged about.
Apple should try being more careful with their property!
Apple should take ownership for their own mistakes.
yes they should
Are you telling Gizmodo paid $5000 for a device they thought it could be a fake one ?.
No, not at all.
I was mostly making an effort to be humorous. I guess it didn't work, and for that I'm sorry. Carry on, everyone!
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.
perhaps get the executive team kicked out of their positions for failing to appropriately safeguard Apple IP by allowing staff to take devices off-site.
good luck with both
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine.
I wasn't trying to say that it was. My response (to another poster and not AI's article) was intended to be humorous. Sorry it wasn't seen that way.
At least he didn't drop it into the toilet......not that I've ever done that mind you.
Better for him if he had... provided he flushed it down by accident too... so it wouldn't be found by the next guy.
Thompson
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.
You do realize that fake iPhones would also have the size in GB printed on the back, to make it look as real as possible to fool the consumer. The prototype iPhone had XXGB instead of an actual number to indicate the capacity. Also, a fake iPhone would not be contained in a plastic case to make it look like a previous model.
Can you imagine if every found item were turned over to the police? The police department would be spending half of their time running a lost-and-found department. But this is only part of the reasoning for why found property isn't required to be turned over to law enforcement.
The other issue is that this would prohibit giving the item back to an alleged owner. Is the finder liable for identifying the correct owner? And at what point should they just turn it over to that person rather than the police? Or perhaps the owner of the property on which it was found? Is an employee of the owner sufficient? What if the event is on rented property. Etc... etc... etc...
The point is that the law is purposefully vague on the issue in most jurisdictions. Most require something along the lines of: a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and to allow the owner to pick it up.
Or at least that is my understanding of why the law doesn't require every found item to be turned over to a third party, including law enforcement. It would be almost impossible to fairly enforce.
But yes, i'm not a lawyer, not even close.
With that said, there are plenty of establishments that I frequent where turning over a found item to the hourly-wage wait staff would almost certainly ensure it not getting back to the owner. Instead, it was better to track down the owner personally. For example, I managed to return an iPod touch found at bar/music-venue. Would it have made it home if turned over to the the bartender or bouncer? Maybe, maybe not.
Similarly, I lost a phone while biking in a park 20 miles from home. Thankfully, someone found it in the middle of the woods, called "dad" and I was reunited with it by the end of the day. Had it been turned over to the park service, I may have never got it back. Same for if it had been turned over to the police.
Gizmodo has no fiduciary or contractual relationship to Apple requiring it to clam up.
Good luck with your lawsuit! I believe there's a criminal defense lawyer, a graduate of the fine law school of Pepperdine that's willing to take the case!
Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
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.
You don't really understand the stock market, do you? You want to do a class action lawsuit because Apple's stock has INCREASED by $14 per share today? Really? Explain to everyone again how you were damaged by this? Maybe you should check the stock market first before making such a comment.
This did not disclose anything different that rumor sites already reported on, including AppleInsider. Maybe you should sue AppleInsider for leaking Apple information too. Apple's competitors have always had higher resolution cameras and built-in flashes on their phones long before Apple decided to incorporate them. Oh, and did you know Apple already spilled the beans on iPhone OS 4.0? Did you know that Apple was already planning on releasing a new phone this summer? Did you know that a higher resolution display and a camera are not secrets? Did you know that in 2007, Apple gave a full preview of the phone six months before its release? None of these events damage Apple's stock.
Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
If you are an 'injured party' (not sure how, but let's say, in your world you feel you are), then sue.
Apple lawyers have lots of other things to do.