Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back

[WvB22]

Every single news or technology site would have jumped into this scoop if they were given the opportunity. Including MacRumors and every other news company. Well maybe the WSJ and Walt Mossberg would have returned it immediately because of their relationship with Apple.

It might be considered theft (at least for the person who sold the phone) but I highly doubt that any court would handle it as such. The letter isn't really strong on demanding the phone back, although if Gizmodo refuses the tone would change quite a bit I am sure.

What keeps me wondering: imagine you found the phone and recognized it as an important prototype. What if you returned it to Apple without telling anyone, what would your reward be? Free mac products for the next five years? Or just a short 'Thank you'.

 

[brewcitywi]

Totally get it

I believe Apple has been damaged by the actions of Gizmodo. Trade secrets were revealed that otherwise might not have been revealed without Gizmodo's teardown and extensive coverage of the phone. Apple is likely to lose sales because of the early reveal. It will be up to the court to determine how much of that is Gizmodo's fault. Certainly, some of the fault lies with the original person that took the phone.

I think Apple will sue, if for no other reason than to set a precedent and make other websites think twice before revealing trade secrets of a device that is in their possession illegally.

Mark

I totally get it. But, I have a feeling that Apple's letter states their position. They ask for the device back. I have a feeling that, if the legal matter was larger, there would have been a delay, and then more formal papers issued.

Who knows! Maybe with all that is coming out, that once they get their device back, there would be further legal damages filed. Somehow I am not sure. Not that Apple wouldn't be justified, especially with a $5,000 purchase, leaked photos, videos, etc.

I think that they want the device back. I think that Apple could get back at Gizmodo in other ways that would be more permanently damaging than simply suing them.

However, I'm no expert on this, but an earlier post claimed that Jobs reads Gizmodo frequently. He might have a soft spot for them, and hence the formal request letter.

 

[Mark Booth]

I wonder if Gizmodo's Lam or Chen or Denton will continue to be a smug as they've been today if Apple files a criminal complaint against them in federal court.

Mark

 

[1Zach1]

So when will Gizmodo release their exclusive interview with Powell?

 

[carbonmotion]

18, U.S.C., 2314, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to transport, or to cause to be transported in interstate commerce, stolen property having a value of $5,000 or more.

There can be little doubt that a prototype iPhone would have a value of $5,000 or more. Particularly since that's how much Gizmodo paid!

They should have paid the guy $4,999!

Mark

I favor the assertion that the initial takings was a conversion under CA laws, however, the counsel for Gawker may have a brilliant counter-argument. Assuming this is true, the Gawker employee who performed this act could be the legal chain which links the company to the illegal act. The company could be responsible through the theory of vicarious liability. Assuming Apple's legal end-game is to financially punish Gawker for its acts, it could follow this route. There is a problem with this theory, though. Do you see it?

 

[Geckotek]

<snip>
Secondly, I think the device looks a lot better in the pics Gizmodo took. For some reason the blurry ones made it seem more of a "slapped-together-in-someones-basement" sort of job.
<snip>

+1

<snip>
Lastly, do any of you think this will affect the release date? Or will Apple just pretend it didnt happen?

Nope, Apple probably has too much invested at this point to push the release date. Besides, this will all just end up being positive for Apple. It seems a majority like the design.

 

[Wreckem]

18, U.S.C., 2314, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to transport, or to cause to be transported in interstate commerce, stolen property having a value of $5,000 or more.

There can be little doubt that a prototype iPhone would have a value of $5,000 or more. Particularly since that's how much Gizmodo paid!

They should have paid the guy $4,999!

Gizmodo KNEW the iPhone prototype didn't belong to the guy they purchased it from. They therefore transported stolen property (or caused it to be transported) across state lines.

Mark

The phone never physically left California. And Photos dont count for interstate transport.

 

[milamber]

Hope they get their $5000 back HA

Uhh they will have made that back many times with the amount of ad traffic they got.

 

[cyruslemont]

Gizmodo will hopefully return the phone back, but I would imagine they'd be pretty pissed off that they just lost $5000 lol, it's not considered theft when they're are willing to return the device to apple, the original finder of the device even waited for someone to make a claim.

I actually didn't wish this was leaked, I love it when heaps of fake versions are thought to be the real deal and then apple blows everyone away at the wwdc, but now it's half ruined for me.

 

[Scottsdale]

I wonder if the finder of the iPhone HD would have gotten a much bigger reward by personally returning it to Steve Jobs? I seriously believe Steve would have given him 1,000 AAPL shares to sign an NDA and not reveal anything until after the release. Yes, it's 1000X more important to SJ than 1,000 shares of AAPL stock. I think it would have been a lot more ethical to send an email to SJ and go from there. Say he got a $10k Apple Store gift card and not 1,000 shares of AAPL. Still, there had to be a much bigger reward than $5,000 if he tried. In addition, it would have been 100% legal to go to Apple instead of selling a phone that was stolen. It was stolen because it wasn't the finders to sell for three years after reporting it stolen without a response. I believe the finder made a series of mistakes, and I wonder if it will land him or her in court? It's a felony at $5,000 and he unlawfully received and sold stolen property according to the law (at least that's the way I read it all).

 

[Geckotek]

Right. I'm sure Apple is more concerned about a component list. A list of components would be worse then a feature leak. The feature leak is somewhat mitigated by free advertising. Overall, it feels like Apple is pretty confident. I think they know their competitors have no way to offer something that is close to resembling it before it is released. (And that is before factoring the software side in.)

This is why I don't think Gizmodo has released photos or a list of the internals. I'm betting their lawyers informed them that they would be crossing a line they shouldn't.

 

[2000m]

i would do anything for gizmoto to send the 4g iphone to the "will it blend" guy

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Hope they get their $5000 back HA

It was a pretty safe assumption Apple would want their phone back. Giz definitely got their money's worth.

 

[diazj3]

If I were the guy who found/stole/sold it, I'd be pretty worried and looking for a very good lawyer. IMO that guy deserves to be sued BIG TIME: not only because he stole the phone by not returning it or leaving it to the bar and its lost and found... but he also took it to make a petty personal gain from it by selling it: that's the real shock here.

I don't defend Apple per se (*), but anyone that holds some kind of intellectual property. Such BS behavior - not only keeping the phone (or laptop, briefcase, etc, for that matter), but selling it to the media or to a competitor - shouldn't be tolerated, and considered industrial espionage. About Gizmodo, I agree they acted without a shred of dignity... but that's media, and that's their business.

(*) There's always the chance this was a "planned, controlled, premeditated leak" for marketing purposes.

So, if it was indeed stolen, come on Apple: sue that s.o.b.!!! if not for you, for everyone else in the creative field.

Look, Apple is going to make their Millions on this phone despite all this. Why do you guys care so much about the mega-corporation suing the guy in a bar and Gizmodo? Seriously? Get a grip. This isn't going to be the slightest blemish on Apple in any way. If anything it's more free publicity.

To some of us it isn't about Apple and a toy. We've all been in the position of "whoops, I forgot to lock my car door and someone took that as an invitation to steal my laptop" or something similar. Yeah, you should lock your car door, but the guy who steals your laptop (and the guy who bought it for 1/4 retail from someone on craigslist) both need the proverbial kick in the balls that is jail.

Anyone who is involved in creating anything for a living also isn't thrilled with the precedent of letting people get away with "industrial espionage" by any other name.

My feelings exactly... the next step would be that it won't necessary for your car door - or your apartment, or your office - to be locked: SOBs like this will be entitled to break in, take your creative property and dispose of it as they want. It's clear this ****** knew what he had in his hand the moment he took it from the table. It's theft by all means... and this isn't about the mega-corporation's millions, or the little poor working guy... this is about setting limits to opportunistic scum.

 

[Jaro65]

Well, I think we knew this was coming. Hopefully we'll learn just a little more about its internals before it has to go back to Apple.

 

[bigjohn]

If I were Lam, I'd say they can pick it up, in the Pacific.

 

[chembox]

I wonder if the finder of the iPhone HD would have gotten a much bigger reward by personally returning it to Steve Jobs? I seriously believe Steve would have given him 1,000 AAPL shares to sign an NDA and not reveal anything until after the release. Yes, it's 1000X more important to SJ than 1,000 shares of AAPL stock. I think it would have been a lot more ethical to send an email to SJ and go from there. Say he got a $10k Apple Store gift card and not 1,000 shares of AAPL. Still, there had to be a much bigger reward than $5,000 if he tried. In addition, it would have been 100% legal to go to Apple instead of selling a phone that was stolen. It was stolen because it wasn't the finders to sell for three years after reporting it stolen without a response. I believe the finder made a series of mistakes, and I wonder if it will land him or her in court? It's a felony at $5,000 and he unlawfully received and sold stolen property according to the law (at least that's the way I read it all).

Blackmailing is an illegal crime.

 

[Wreckem]

I believe Apple has been damaged by the actions of Gizmodo. Trade secrets were revealed that otherwise might not have been revealed without Gizmodo's teardown and extensive coverage of the phone. Apple is likely to lose sales because of the early reveal. It will be up to the court to determine how much of that is Gizmodo's fault. Certainly, some of the fault lies with the original person that took the phone.

I think Apple will sue, if for no other reason than to set a precedent and make other websites think twice before revealing trade secrets of a device that is in their possession illegally.

Mark

Gizmodo did NOT reveal anything more than Engadget. Engadget released first. Its the same concept of how MacRumors, NY Times aren liable, they are only reporting what was already reported. Engadget initially showed the photos and said their "source" told them xyz specs. Gizmodo had better photos but only said the same thing about xyz specs.

Did Scotter Libby go to jail for outing Plame? No. Because he didnt out her, Dick Armitage did. Engadget, under the quise of rumors outed the Iphone 4th Gen. Gizmodo gave it more credence. Apple is the only one who can confirm it.

 

[giosaccone]

I hope It's a prototype!!

 

[akempf]

Gary Powell

I like the sense of humour in apple's subversive marketing department:

Making up an employee called Gray Powell, in honour of Gary Powers who 'lost' an american U2 spy plane over Moscow in 1960, making the disabled craft known to russia and the international press...

(Powers was actually shot down and received high honours after the final details were disclosed in 2000.)

 

[brewcitywi]

Humor

When I was 8 years old, I saw a headline in the National Enquirer that said, "BIGFOOT STOLE MY WIFE!" I saw it and started to cry.

All of this journalistic hedonism is too much for me!

 

[milamber]

It's genus marketing.

But not genius spelling.

 

[Geckotek]

Gizmodo did NOT reveal anything more than Engadget. Engadget released first. Its the same concept of how MacRumors, NY Times aren liable, they are only reporting what was already reported. Engadget initially showed the photos and said their "source" told them xyz specs. Gizmodo had better photos but only said the same thing about xyz specs.

Did Scotter Libby go to jail for outing Plame? No. Because he didnt out her, Dick Armitage did. Engadget, under the quise of rumors outed the Iphone 4th Gen. Gizmodo gave it more credence. Apple is the only one who can confirm it.

This has me wondering if Gizmodo and Engadget worked together on this. I'm guessing the fact that Engadget reported first on the rumor may have lessened the legal burden of Gizmodo.

 

[WvB22]

There is another big issue here: when they bought it they had reasons to believe it was a prototype of Apple (Why else pay $5000) but they were not sure. Hell, no one was sure and till Apple demanded it back some people were still saying it was a hoax. So to be sure to give it to the rightful owner they had to do a thorough examination of the phone

Now that they know it is Apple's they should return it. Apple should take this as a man. You screw up, you live with it. They can only blame themselves. Poor guy at Apple though. Before giving the device back, Gizmodo should demand that the guy can keep working at Apple, although at another position maybe (cleaning glossy iMac screens or something).

 

[David29]

True. What publication passed? I missed that part.


You really need to get a clue. Apple's name all over an unreleased device is all the proof they need. A judge wouldn't even deliberate over that argument for a second. Not to mention the IMEI # being registered w/ AT&T on an Apple account.

So, simply having a name on it proves that it belongs to Apple? Wow, remind me to get some white-out and go to Starbucks tomorrow. When someone isn't looking, I am gonna write my name on the lid of their new MacBook Pro ... and then claim that I own it.

LOL

The problem with people with Legal Degrees is that they think everyone is afraid of people with Legal Degrees.