wonder
About
- Username
- wonder
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 229
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych 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 …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas Ok, that is just bad logic. What it implies is that they intent to determine the owner...not at all that they know who it is. The owner was the person in the bar was it not? Would Giz be able to get the info…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych There are different ways to determine who the owner was. This was one of them. Whichever you thought was nicer to Apple as an applefanboi doesn't matter. Giz did what they needed to do to determine the true ow…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych Gizmodo got all this information third hand from the "finder." When the story first broke out on Engadget, no one believed it. Why should Gizmodo take the "finder" at his word? So did they make any attempt …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych 1) The trade secret law doesn't apply to objects that aren't secret. Leaving stuff on a bar stool out in the public will destroy the "secret" nature of the trade secret. Thus, it doesn't apply. 2) Handing t…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by tulkas i have an iphone. They should have called me too. They claim they needed to confirm it was likely apple's property. Calls from the finder to apple to confirm this had been ignored. Next step, confirm likely o…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened). I am talking about Giz NOT the finder of the device. Giz did NOT try to contact Apple before they pul…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone? No and No. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas The duty of care is why they were unwilling to disassemble it to the point of damaging it. The code says to hand it over to the police if they cannot contact and return it to the owner. They have done so. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freddych It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss. They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas But, would you think it was reasonable for some random, drunk bar patron to recognize the OS as an advanced version? I am surprised he even recognized it wasn't the current version. And he didn't know it was own…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas Theft requires a act of theft. The phone was lost, not stolen. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Selling found property is probably not legal, until certain conditions are met. And yes, with certa…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas 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 …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by NasserAE 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 …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by michaelab 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 …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by WilliamG 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' d…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Tulkas 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…
-
Regardless of if it was an Apple device or not, it did not belong to the person they bought it from, and they knew that.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by minderbinder I don't see anything there about aTV. Just try reading a little further...
-
Quote: Originally Posted by DoctorBenway The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-face…