I think you are causing problems sacrificing clarity for brevity.We aren't mind readers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back
- Thread starter CooKieMoNs7eR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you are causing problems sacrificing clarity for brevity.We aren't mind readers.
We are talking about a company that arranges screen-shots of products with clocks set to a specific time. So they will be CORRECT AT THE TIME OF THE PRESENTATION!
This company does not leave anything to chance.
C.
At that point they could still have prevented the leak getting to the public. Based on the whole legal discussion here lawyers of Apple would at least have tried to prevent the publication. Besides that, Apple would have responded that they indeed lost it and regard the phone as stolen.
I only know Dutch law, and I now it quite well. When you find something and take it with you, this wouldn't be regarded as stealing. You could still be in the process of returning it to the rightful owner. The minute you sell it, it is stolen because you then perform an action you can only do when you are the owner (or acting on behalf of him). The phone was sold by the founder, and thus stolen.
Things change. You might be right, you might not be. I've been reading about this for far too long over the past two days and putting everything together... it seems more likely that this phone was purposely left, than not. But it's my opinion... which I am allowed to have.
What's done in the past is not always what's done in the future. And no one said this will be the EXACT phone.
I was hoping apple would just keep their mouths shut. Now I don't have anything to look forward to.
This was a prototype. Prototypes change. I can guarantee you Apple still has plenty left up their sleeves.
It's even worse in California - going by California statutes, it was stolen even before he sold it - the finder is under legal obligation to report it to authorities if the item is over a certain value. Until a legally defined period of time passes for the legitimate owner to abandon it, it is not at any time the property of the finder.
It is possible that Apple may have case against the finder. Although he apparently made a good-faith attempt to return the phone.
I am not sure Apple will be bothered to pursue the finder in court. What would be the point?
But how would Apple block a story?
C.
There's that nifty feature that Apple offer called Find My iPhone:
They obviously had the phone registered and location aware as they wiped it the morning after the loss. So the following scenarios are on offer:
* They contacted the person who "found" the iphone and the person wasn't forthcoming with returning it to the owner. They did a remote wipe anyway to protect any secrets: 50%
* They decided to not contact the owner and did a remote wipe and hope it never got into the gadget press. Probability: 10%
* Neither of the above happened. The phone was planted and Apple was trying out a new viral marketing technique. Probability: 99%
Exactly my point as well 9 pages prior!
Except I envisioned Apple crashing through the windows all "SWAT team in Christmas Vacation"-like and black bagging everyone in the residence!!!
Selling an item less than a month after finding it is not good faith - the laws of California are very clear on this. If he was making a good faith claim, he should have reported it to the police (since he never should have been in possession in the first place) so that the story can be official.
Could Gizmodo be in danger of charges by SEC?
I love hearing news about any new Apple gadget, but what Gizmodo has done has gone beyond the pale.
The guy who found the phone, whether or not he waited at the bar as he claimed and/or asked around if it belonged to anyone, knew that the phone did not spontaneously generate and show up there on the stool. He knew it belonged to someone other than him. He should have turned it into the manager of the bar so that when the person who lost it called in, they'd have it - or to the police. There is no other acceptable action.
That he took it home implies that he intended to either keep (theft) or sell it (fencing stolen goods).
That he sold it to Gizmodo for $5000 is evidence that he realized what he had was an unreleased product by a very well known, publicly traded company. He knew it was of great value and sold it to the right buyer/fence.
That Gizmodo was willing to spend $5000 for something they knew did not rightfully belong to the seller shows that they are willing to commit a felony. Not that their behavior is overly shocking as they caused disruption to electronic devices at an event in the past where they were told not to return. The organization appears to be run by a bunch of 15 year olds - in intellect, anyway. Clearly, Gizmodo gets a LOT of traffic. Just go to alexa.com and put in their URL and you will see the significance of the amount of traffic they get and ergo, that they get a lot of high dollar ad revenue. Gizmodo was willing to shell out $5K because it was worth far more $ to them in boosted ad sales due to increased web stats with this bit of 'news.'
A responsible journalist would have contacted the police before engaging in the transaction so that Apple could recover their property, the thief would be arrested and so that they'd be a hero AND be able to report on how honest they were and that they saw a new device by Apple.
That they took the device apart shows their wonton disregard for the property of others. It did not belong to them and they knew it. They disassembled it and showed off the internals, giving an unfair advantage to Apple's competitors months before the product is ready to launch.
For those that admire Apple, their products and hold their stock, this should be an outrage. All of us who are gadget hounds only think of the latest gadget we want to buy - but we are not the only ones reading the online leaks. Those who play the market and those who compete against Apple are also eating this up. This 'leak' by Gizmodo, which is not a true leak, is criminal and acts against Apple's interests.
Frankly, I hope the SEC brings charges against Gizmodo/Gawker for securities fraud. At the very least, they have committed felony in fencing stolen property - and across state lines.
I love hearing news about any new Apple gadget, but what Gizmodo has done has gone beyond the pale.
The guy who found the phone, whether or not he waited at the bar as he claimed and/or asked around if it belonged to anyone, knew that the phone did not spontaneously generate and show up there on the stool. He knew it belonged to someone other than him. He should have turned it into the manager of the bar so that when the person who lost it called in, they'd have it - or to the police. There is no other acceptable action.
That he took it home implies that he intended to either keep (theft) or sell it (fencing stolen goods).
That he sold it to Gizmodo for $5000 is evidence that he realized what he had was an unreleased product by a very well known, publicly traded company. He knew it was of great value and sold it to the right buyer/fence.
That Gizmodo was willing to spend $5000 for something they knew did not rightfully belong to the seller shows that they are willing to commit a felony. Not that their behavior is overly shocking as they caused disruption to electronic devices at an event in the past where they were told not to return. The organization appears to be run by a bunch of 15 year olds - in intellect, anyway. Clearly, Gizmodo gets a LOT of traffic. Just go to alexa.com and put in their URL and you will see the significance of the amount of traffic they get and ergo, that they get a lot of high dollar ad revenue. Gizmodo was willing to shell out $5K because it was worth far more $ to them in boosted ad sales due to increased web stats with this bit of 'news.'
A responsible journalist would have contacted the police before engaging in the transaction so that Apple could recover their property, the thief would be arrested and so that they'd be a hero AND be able to report on how honest they were and that they saw a new device by Apple.
That they took the device apart shows their wonton disregard for the property of others. It did not belong to them and they knew it. They disassembled it and showed off the internals, giving an unfair advantage to Apple's competitors months before the product is ready to launch.
For those that admire Apple, their products and hold their stock, this should be an outrage. All of us who are gadget hounds only think of the latest gadget we want to buy - but we are not the only ones reading the online leaks. Those who play the market and those who compete against Apple are also eating this up. This 'leak' by Gizmodo, which is not a true leak, is criminal and acts against Apple's interests.
Frankly, I hope the SEC brings charges against Gizmodo/Gawker for securities fraud. At the very least, they have committed felony in fencing stolen property - and across state lines.
Honestly, all these speculations are insane. It seems many people here have never heard of Occam's razor.
What you see here is either exactly, or nearly exactly what is coming out in the near future. The accidental leak is probably just that, an accidental leak, and Apple's just staying cool. They can ask websites to take down images, but the people who really care have already seen this and any perceived damage is done.
What you see here is either exactly, or nearly exactly what is coming out in the near future. The accidental leak is probably just that, an accidental leak, and Apple's just staying cool. They can ask websites to take down images, but the people who really care have already seen this and any perceived damage is done.
The finder should not have sold it on. But I am not sure that helps Apple.
Judge: We find against the defendant - Apple is awarded a sum of $75M dollars in damages.
Defendant: Well you can have my TeeVee
C.
I think the whole thing is just a big ploy by Apple.
Left in Bar? months ago?
The guy who picked it up, just happened to know who to sell it to?
The Phone was wiped clean the next day by Apple? How could anyone find the owner, or the facebook page of the guy that 'lost' it.
The story that the some guy called Apple to return it, got no where, and was issued a trouble ticket?
All this was made public just before another new phone launch? the HTC Droid Incredible?
Just before an earnings report?
No, all planned by Apple, Gizmodo and Engadget
Left in Bar? months ago?
The guy who picked it up, just happened to know who to sell it to?
The Phone was wiped clean the next day by Apple? How could anyone find the owner, or the facebook page of the guy that 'lost' it.
The story that the some guy called Apple to return it, got no where, and was issued a trouble ticket?
All this was made public just before another new phone launch? the HTC Droid Incredible?
Just before an earnings report?
No, all planned by Apple, Gizmodo and Engadget
Fake letter. Apples logo is not purple on the real one.
I can't wait for Gizmodo to get sued and never let in to any Apple events.
I can't wait for Gizmodo to get sued and never let in to any Apple events.
What does engadget have to do with this?
I doubt Apple is going to sue the guy, but they can file criminal charges if they want to.
I'm gonna have to agree.
Generally, conspiracy theories are illogical garbage conjured up by losers who want to feel smart, but on the other hand the "past experience" argument isn't very discerning either. "Apple doesn't do that" applies to everything they did after peddling DIY computer kits from a garage. Apple doesn't do Intel, Apple doesn't do music players, Apple doesn't do PC software, Apple doesn't do cellphones -- except, they do.
What we do know is that Apple doesn't do things that aren't working, and their security/secrecy measures clearly belong in that category. No matter how wordy their NDAs are, how impenetrable their vault walls are and how tightly they bolt prototypes to tables, everytime they've released something in the last 5 or so years we've known quite a few details in advance. So why would they remain married to their way of communicating? Why wouldn't they sooner or later try a different, and perhaps radical, approach, when even stale old companies like Microsoft are willing to rethink their marketing ways and do bizarre stuff like the Seinfeld commercials?
Historically, every time we've thought we knew Apple, they've changed. And when it comes to their marketing and communication it feels we really know the drill by now. Rumors -> Keynote -> rumors -> Keynote -> interspersed with the same old Mac vs. PC commercials.
Well they've stopped doing those commercials now, and they've stopped going to Macworld, and frankly the Keynote schtick is getting a little stale, so maybe they're trying something new?
Again, I hate conspiracy theories but I can't help but think that the only logical way for control freaks to deal with unstoppable leaks, must be to take control of the leaks themselves.
I think this is the distinction.The 1st amendment DOES protect your right to publish anything you want.
BUT:you could get sued for it.That is a civil,NOT criminal case.
Civil vs criminal are two VERY VERY different things.
You can not say that there are limits to speech/press,but there may be consequences.
Considering the amount of micro-engineering that was seen in the unit from Gizmondo, I really doubt this.
Exactly my point as well 9 pages prior!
Except I envisioned Apple crashing through the windows all "SWAT team in Christmas Vacation"-like and black bagging everyone in the residence!!!
Do your numbers add up? I need you to be 200% sure!
Exactly what I'm thinking. Just doesn't look like something Ive would design, does it? Too boxy. Like a step backward in terms of coolness.
I doubt that Apple will sue (or bring charges) against the guy who found it. The publicity surrounding such a move would make a bad situation far worse. Besides, there would be little to no benefit from such an action.
You cannot be serious to suggest that Gizmodo, a completely legitimate website would produce a fake letter that was not from Apple or wasn't true representation of the correspondence from Apple Inc (whether it was a letter or email)?
Just out of curiosity - how old are you?