Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Circumstances Surrounding Lost Next Gen iPhone Detailed

kiljoy616 said:
Real Lawyer sent me this:

Ahh, my favorite!


In Tort law it's either "trespass to chattel" or "conversion" depending on how much you deprive the owner of the item's use. If the person takes it awake and never returns it, or sells it... we're talking about "conversion" and the convertor would be liable for the entire amount of the phone.


In criminal law it's called "larceny." However, since larceny requires a mental state, that is, "intent", the question becomes... whether at the time you took the phone you knew who the rightful owner was, and you intended the moment you picked it up, to "permanently deprive" the owner of it's use...


Some states use the word "theft" in their statutes... here is the applicable Texas law:


"Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;
(2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or
(3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another..."
Click to expand...

so, there could be a lawsuit? the person who found it knew who it belonged to since they checked the Facebook app and it was already signed in according to Gizmodo.
 
I do find this funny that no one bought this up when suposivly it was Engadget who had the first pics of it but now gizmodo is made out bad on this too. they should also be in on this too.
 
coleridge78 said:
In fact, despite your grand pronouncements you're wrong. Keeping property which is identifiably owned by someone (i.e., not a piece of gum lying in the street and could have been anyone's), and which you should know they have not relinquished their claim on, is theft. Both selling it and taking it apart and destroying it, depending on the exact circumstances, can be either or both of various forms of trafficking in stolen goods and theft by conversion.

If I drop a candy bar or a one-dollar bill in the street it's finders keepers. If I drop my backpack with a drivers' license and cell phone in it, you're going to jail if you keep it.
Click to expand...

Your argument assumes there is a set and known value for discarded/abandoned items.
What if said gun was actually the last chewed piece by Albert Einstein?
Or what if said candy-bar were a yet to be released prototype-bar from Hershey?

Undocumented value and unstated unintentional loss does not define the act of finding an abandoned item as stealing.

Besides, everyone finger-waving Giz is making the unfair assumption that they don't intend to return it (rather than let it end up on eBay to fall into a competitor/knockoff-artist's paws).
 
So now we all know. Wasn't that thrilling? I used to love when Steve would introduce a new product, but hey! Now we have rumor sites doing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Steve doesn't even introduce it at the keynote now and instead just put it up on the website without any fanfare.

Thanks for sucking the fun out of it Gizmodo.

Then again maybe Apple planted it from the start to throw everyone off. I'm HOPING that's the case because this guy hasn't been fired and would be considered a liability and Apple legal hasn't had the photos removed.
 
So, He also just happened to have his Facebook info on a iPhone prototype??? :confused:Let alone the Facebook app itself which is not a standard app (at least at the moment)
And the Joe Blow that found it besides not doing what most people would do (as many stated) Just happens to be into tech and thinks "hey! I should contact Gizmondo! :confused::rolleyes:
Just seems a little strange.
 
Rat-Boy said:
So if the guy did as he says, and made all those calls AND put in a ticket with Apple, then I would say he is free and clear.
Click to expand...

Nope, since he knew it was Gray Powell's phone, and did nothing to contact him.

He didn't contact Apple to give the phone back. He contacted Apple to get $$$.
 
What I think (not that it matters):

PR. Gray and the "thief" both told to be at the bar. Gray leaves his iPhone on bar stool, "thief" picks it up and leaves.

"Thief" has a whole story made up by Apple themselves, and is told to sell to a tech blog big enough to make the story go viral. "Thief" also threatens said tech blog to keep their mouths shut about his identity or else, he will sue/do whatever.

Tech blog makes story go viral.

Steve, "Thief" and Gray meet at local bar for drinks and a job well done.

Victims: Tech blog for misinformation, Apple fans, as we are going crazy over this, consumers on the verge of picking up a Blackberry/Droid/insert competing phone here.


Why I think this:

If someone called Apple about a lost prototype, I can guarantee that they would jump on it. If this is in fact a genuine case, not only is Gray in danger of losing his job, but the employees who ignored the importance of the "thief's" call.

This is pretty much the phone everybody wanted from the start. This is HUGE PR for Apple. Not only have a bunch of people halted their imminent BB/Droid/etc. purchases, but it also keeps current users happy.

There are WAY too many holes in the story to know for sure though. Bad journalism is bad...

If all of this is genuinely a mistake on Gray's part. Ouch...
 
This should not be considered theft, but it has gone way too far. What Gizmodo should have done is purchase the phone for $5000, walked over to Apple HQ and request to speak to someone higher up in the company, give them the phone, and ask for a reimbursement for the $5000 they spent. (Heck, Apple might have even given them $15000 in appreciation). It would be definitely be worth it just for their trust from Apple to be increased. And also, its just the right thing to do.

Apple has many reasons for their secrecy, with surprise being one of them. It looks like this surprise has been ruined and the release day is not going to be as exciting as it should be.
 
8CoreWhore said:
I have found a few phones over the years. What you do it call people in the contacts until you get someone who knows the owner and can arrange a pick up.
Two: they couldve asked the bar tender if the guy paid with a card etc.

Then once they realized it was a prototype, they knew who the owner was, apple, and knew they could get a lot. That's theft. Gizmodo is equally guilty.

"Journalism" doesn't exempt them from the laws of California.
Click to expand...

Being members of the press does not protect you in any state from damaging someone economically on the internet. Trade secrets have protections beyond freedom of the press. BTW, the constitution refers to encroachments by the government on the people. There is no government involvement here. Between individual citizens it becomes an issue of libel. Between organizations and individuals or organizations and organizations its and issue of libel, or in this case economic espionage.
 
I'm sure Apple used something WAY more advanced than MobileMe for their inventory wiping management.
 
CFreymarc said:
Quite possibly but this act, as I have been told, has been compromised many times on First Amendment issues.
Click to expand...
Not that often, really.

The more immediate issue is that this isn't a trade secret case. A trade secret must be secret. The design and internals of the phone are protectable trade secrets as long as Apple keeps the units out of public places. Once they start testing in public, you can't claim the visuals as trade secrets. Documents, schematics, and the like can be, if reasonable measures to protect them are taken or if someone intentionally breached the limits of secrecy to get the information.

The only way this is a trade secret issue is if the phone was not authorized to be out in public in the first place, and that seems highly unlikely based on the facts. Placing it in a disguised case is about practical concealment, not legal secrecy.

If a test car, wrapped in false panels like they do, were to be left in a public parking lot and the panels and plastic were removed, the ensuing photos would have nothing to do with trade secrets (although if a person removed them to photograph it, that person would be in trouble for other reasons).
The open source community has reverse compiled many proprietary code and circuit designs with threats of this act being enforced.
Click to expand...
Most of the time, reverse engineering has nothing to do with the quoted law.
 
I really don't think this was a "planted iphone." It just goes against everything Apple to do something like that. Their ability to keep things a secret up until the last minute is a valuable competency. It's not an easy feat to pull off in today's world, and it generates a lot of buzz for them. If they really did plant the phone then they're just giving the competition an early heads up.
 
goobot said:
tho apple cant do anything cause then its proven real.
Click to expand...

Exactly, just the act of trying to enforce any act like this only acknowledges that is it real. My take is that we are going to get a week or so of hype. It will get good free press, fade, be forgotten by the mainstream. The Apple faithful will keep it in their lore and then the next gen iPhone will come out with this almost forgotten by all except corporate historians.
 
This reminds me of three things:

1) Terminator 2 when Dr Dyson got access to "the chip from the future".

2) Jurassic Park when Dennis Nedry sold a bunch of stolen dinosaur embryos to the evil competitor for $100,000.

3) A Canadian friend of mine works in the auto industry. One day she had to take a very hi-tech prototype "thingie" to Chrysler HQ in Auburn Hills. She tossed said "thingie" on the passenger seat of her little Civic and crossed the Detroit/Windsor border. A curious customs guy saw it sitting there and asked her what the "thingie" was worth. She (honestly) said she had no idea, so customs pulled her over and called her boss. The boss said as a one-off prototype it was worth "millions" in R&D costs alone. Needless to say the customs guys freaked out at the thought of a cute young blonde importing/exporting millions of dollars worth of anything with no paperwork, like it was a ham sandwich sitting on the seat next to her! They let her go with a warning, as mentioned, she is a cute blonde.

So the moral of the three stories: $5,000 is a pittance for a prototype iPhone HD. I bet Gizmodo could sell it right now for a thousand times that much to a dozen different companies who would love to catch-up with Apple's next-generation technology.
 
gallagb said:
Dear Steve,
Please put out a statement saying this is bogus or real.
Click to expand...

In typical Steve candor at Tuesday's financial conference call, expect to hear this:
"I've been asked to comment on whether the reported iPhone prototype is real or fake. It is.
There will be no further comments on unannounced products."​
 
djdole said:
Your argument assumes there is a set and known value for discarded/abandoned items.
What if said gun was actually the last chewed piece by Albert Einstein?
Or what if said candy-bar were a yet to be released prototype-bar from Hershey?

Undocumented value and unstated unintentional loss does not define the act of finding an abandoned item as stealing.
Click to expand...

It isn't my argument, but feel free to bloviate anyway. In your example, there is no intent or reason to believe it is anything other than a piece of gum. Or just a candy bar.

Your unfounded assertions fail because you cannot just "decide" that something is abandoned when you find it. If there is a name on it, which there is, you must give it back. Even if there is not a name on it, abandonment is not as clear as you claim. In this case there was a name and contact info. Unless the owner said: "I don't want it", you do not get to keep it. Not in the time frames we're talking about in this story. People have been convicted of conversion after months of the owner not physical returning to reclaim the property. It depends on the facts.
 
Yeah, it makes sense.

Godzilla71 said:
So, He also just happened to have his Facebook info on a iPhone prototype??? :confused:Let alone the Facebook app itself which is not a standard app (at least at the moment)
And the Joe Blow that found it besides not doing what most people would do (as many stated) Just happens to be into tech and thinks "hey! I should contact Gizmondo! :confused::rolleyes:
Just seems a little strange.
Click to expand...


I am quite sure, that as a part of normal testing, they release phone candidates to their software teams to use and run general everyday user testing on, while keeping it in a case that conceals most of the new hardware.

It's not a stretch to think they would let their software developers use the device every day so they can experience bugs first hand, not a stretch at all...
 
I don't understand how or why apple would let someone leave the premises with an "iPhone prototype"

I still call bulls**t. We'll see if I'm right or wrong in 60-90 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back