Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back

[shiseiryu1]

I love me some awesome hardware, but...

Not disagreeing -because Apple will do video chat better than anyone in a walk. I have zero doubts about that whatsoever. But they will not be the first to break the hardware barrier:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/htc-evo-4g-is-sprints-android-powered-knight-in-superphone-armo/

"the camera is an 8 megapixel monstrosity with flash, that's capable of 720p video, and is augmented by a 1.3 megapixel front facing camera for good measure."

Frankly, I would gladly forego a front-facing camera and vid chat if Jobs gave me 720p video recording from the back and stuk an HDMI port on the dock

I don't think that iPhones are ever going to be the best hardware wise...however that doesn't mean that iPhones won't be the best. Relying on hardware to differentiate yourself is a losing proposition because once a new processor comes out every other company can buy it from the same Chinese manufacturer and stick it in their phone. The software (and thus 'the experience') is the real point of differentiation with the iPhone and that's something you can't buy easily...it takes vision, talent, and years of development. That's why as much as I love fast and cool hardware I'm not going to jump ship just to get my hands on the next device with the fastest processor or higher-res camera.

 

[jlc1978]

With the amount of traffic they got due to their writeup I'm sure they found the $5000 to be a good investment.

Also, I'd like to point out California Penal Code Section 485:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft.

While, IANAL, it seems theft depends on what constitutes "reasonable and just efforts."
According to Gizmodo; the finders of the "prototype" waited a while for the guy to return; then contacted Apple and were blown off when they tried to return it. Once it was bricked it's hard to say who owned it.
I'd even argue it's not clear when they found it that it is Apple property; it could simply be a fake, or someone's modded phone.
Based on the above; I'd say theft would be a hard thing to prove.
Gizmodo is simply doing what journalists do to get stories; I would hope they contacted their lawyer to arrange the deal in a way that keeps both sides out of trouble.

 

[ddarko]

My guess is that wiping the model was considered more important since it had 4.0 on it which was going to be announced shortly. There could have been any number of confidential info on it. Corporations do that all the time with smart-phones - they wipe them instead of locating them.


They might exist, but that doesn't mean they get used. My guess is that Apple figured that using Geo location tracking would be too time consuming or not accurate enough or figured that it would turn up honestly.

Or it could be the thief who stole it from Apple was able to disable the tracking.

Remember, everyone is assuming Gizmodo's story of the history of the device is true but there's no independent verification of that. I accept Gizmodo believed what it was told by the seller was true but I think there's is a real and probably likely possibility the story was invented by a thief so Gizmodo would buy the device from him.

More and more, I think Gizmodo got hookwinked and the tale of a lost phone is pure fiction. The device wasstolen from Apple and its tracking disabled. Apple was able to wipe it but the thief physically disabled the phone so that it couldn't be tracked. He then took it to Gizmodo with this preposterous story and Gizmodo paid him $5000 for stolen goods.

And this is why reputable journalists DON'T pay for scoops; because it can provide an incentive for thieves.

 

[cmaier]

While, IANAL, it seems theft depends on what constitutes "reasonable and just efforts."
According to Gizmodo; the finders of the "prototype" waited a while for the guy to return; then contacted Apple and were blown off when they tried to return it. Once it was bricked it's hard to say who owned it.
I'd even argue it's not clear when they found it that it is Apple property; it could simply be a fake, or someone's modded phone.
Based on the above; I'd say theft would be a hard thing to prove.
Gizmodo is simply doing what journalists do to get stories; I would hope they contacted their lawyer to arrange the deal in a way that keeps both sides out of trouble.

They were clearly able to find "the owner" (Gray). Gizmodo is the next ThinkSecret. Bye bye.

 

[pdjudd]

Or it could be the thief who stole it from Apple was able to disable the tracking.

Possible, but unlikely. If he was able to disable tracking, he could have prevented the wipe by disabling the radio.

Remember, everyone is assuming Gizmodo's story of the history of the device is true but there's no independent verification of that. I accept Gizmodo believed what it was told by the seller was true but I think there's is a real and probably likely possibility the story was invented by a thief so Gizmodo would buy the device from him.

Well it's the only story we have right now and it ain't good.

More and more, I think Gizmodo got hookwinked and the tale of a lost phone is pure fiction. The device wasstolen from Apple and its tracking disabled. Apple was able to wipe it but the thief physically disabled the phone so that it couldn't be tracked. He then took it to Gizmodo with this preposterous story and Gizmodo paid him $5000 for stolen goods.

And this is why reputable journalists DON'T pay for scoops; because it can provide an incentive for thieves.

If Gizmodo paid $5000 for a prototype phone, they knew what they were getting into - fake story or not - they bought something they had no right to and was not there's to buy.

 

[chuckiej]

I'm sure someone has said this but...
It could be that the innards of the phone are real but the case design is not what they finally decided on.

GIZMODO got what they wanted out of it; there's really no reason to keep it.

 

[Jeffacme]

The guy who found the phone is a criminal and should be charged. If he was honest he would have returned it to the rightful owner not sold it for $5000.00 end of story.

I work in advertising in an end stage and deal with unreleased products all the time. Have signed many NDAs and can tell you that buying the stolen phone and then revealing what any reasonable person would know is proprietary and secret information leaves the purchaser open to a huge lawsuit. Damages could be enormous based not only the financial gain Gizmodo received from publishing the information but also the damage to Apple's planned marketing for the device and the loses from any information gained by Apple's competitors.

 

[marcfogel]

Everyone is assuming the 5k went flat out to the purchase/sale of the device. I bet Gizmodo purchased the story and offered to return the device. There are reports that Gizmodo contacted the Apple Engineer to see if he wanted it back.

How many times has Lam said Gizmodo buys "scoops"

From a legal standpoint, they would be protected.

Flame away!

 

[73CortinaV8]

This "lost phone" was such a blatant marketing stunt to get info about the phone in the hands of the media before release.

there may be SEC/sarbox laws preventing apple from announcing this phone before it's ready to be used.

This is clearly a way around this.

Come on people. This whole thing was a stunt.

 

[pdjudd]

Have signed many NDAs and can tell you that buying the stolen phone and then revealing what any reasonable person would know is proprietary and secret information leaves the purchaser open to a huge lawsuit.

While that is generally true, Gizmodo was not bound by any NDA. The only thing that should have stopped them from doing their articles was ethics and the fact they are in possession of stolen goods.

 

[Ironworker808]

The guy who found the phone is a criminal and should be charged. If he was honest he would have returned it to the rightful owner not sold it for $5000.00 end of story.

Unless he was part of the controlled leak.

(Assuming that it is a controlled leak.)

 

[cmaier]

This "lost phone" was such a blatant marketing stunt to get info about the phone in the hands of the media before release.

there may be SEC/sarbox laws preventing apple from announcing this phone before it's ready to be used.

This is clearly a way around this.

Come on people. This whole thing was a stunt.

That's stupid. Apple wants the world to know about it's future phone. A phone that's far superior to the phones you can buy now (more memory, much higher resolution, two cameras, improved back camera, flash, thinner, etc.).

I suppose they did this because they don't want to sell any more of THIS generation's iPhones for the next three months?

 

[Jeffacme]

Everyone is assuming the 5k went flat out to purchase/sale the device. I bet Gizmodo purchased the story and offered to return the device.

From a legal standpoint, they would be protected.

You are speculating, if Gizmodo accepted stolen property and then profited from revealing secret information they are not protected.

 

[cmaier]

While that is generally true, Gizmodo was not bound by any NDA. The only thing that should have stopped them from doing their articles was ethics and the fact they are in possession of stolen goods.

They knowingly published misappropriated trade secrets. They're toast. This is a fairly accurate summary of the law:

Second, you commit misappropriation if you publish a trade secret and you know that the person who gave you the information acquired it through improper means or under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use. Even if you don't actually know that the person who gave you the information acquired it in this way, you may be liable if you are aware of facts that suggest that this person acquired the information improperly.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/basics-trade-secret-claim

 

[Jeffacme]

Unless he was part of the controlled leak.

(Assuming that it is a controlled leak.)

Yes if it is a controlled leak he obviously wont be charged and Gizmodo is in the clear.

 

[marcfogel]

You are speculating, if Gizmodo accepted stolen property and then profited from revealing secret information they are not protected.

Of course I am, so is everyone else.
However, If Lam's response is true in the link under Apple's letter, then he did admit purchasing the device.

 

[puffnstuff]

He knew the guys name and knew the guy had a FB. If you look up a number for Apple all you will get is customer service. We still do not know if Gray was robbed because the bar story seems like total B.S

 

[pdjudd]

They knowingly published misappropriated trade secrets. They're toast. This is a fairly accurate summary of the law:




http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/basics-trade-secret-claim

Good point, I wonder how Gizmodo can get around that?

 

[OllyW]

I suppose they did this because they don't want to sell any more of THIS generation's iPhones for the next three months?

The sales of iPhones always slump around this time of year anyway. It's the big disadvantage with having a 12 month update cycle.

 

[Jeffacme]

Of course I am, so is everyone else.
However, If Lam's response is true in the link under Apple's letter, then he did admit purchasing the device.

Then he received stolen property and revealed proprietary information which at the very least opens him up to a lawsuit.

 

[marcfogel]

Good point, I wonder how Gizmodo can get around that?

Lets assume the guy left it in the bar, in the open. This guy is an employee of Apple. Who revealed trade secrets, Gizmodo or the employee.

 

[iphonetester]

I was hoping apple would just keep their mouths shut. Now I don't have anything to look forward to.

That's not true - even if you "know" how externals look like, you do not know how this phone works - iChat, camera with flash, better screen etc. So there is still plenty to look for!

 

[ddarko]

Possible, but unlikely. If he was able to disable tracking, he could have prevented the wipe by disabling the radio.

Well it's the only story we have right now and it ain't good.


If Gizmodo paid $5000 for a prototype phone, they knew what they were getting into - fake story or not - they bought something they had no right to and was not there's to buy.

Not necessarily. The priority for a thief with knowledge of this device would very likely be to disable the tracking since he doesn't want to get caught. Apple was able to wipe the device before he could prevent that.

And yes, it's the only story but it doesn't pass the smell test. It just smells fishy. And as I said, Gizmodo has acknowledged publicly - albeit obliquely - that the phone was stolen. That admission itself throws the entire "lost and found" story into question because "stolen" cannot be reconciled with the innocent bystander story. They can't both be right and since Gizmodo agrees with Apple that the phone was stolen, I think that throws the lost story out the window.

And although I am no defender of Gizmodo, it's possible they didn't know it was stolen until AFTER they bought it and took it apart. Maybe the guy demanded money first before allowing Gizmodo to examine its innards. Still, I agree that Gizmodo, even if it didn't KNOW 100% it was real or authentic, probably should have known that it was and that "should have known" may get them into legal hot water.

Once again, this is why journalists shouldn't pay their sources. If Gizmodo gets in legal trouble for this, they reap what they sow. They decided it was their policy to pay for this and if they get in trouble, they brought it on themselves.

 

[cmaier]

The sales of iPhones always slump around this time of year anyway. It's the big disadvantage with having a 12 month update cycle.

Ok. Here's the fun part. If they slump more than they did last year, guess who's responsible. (More accurately - guess who's going to have to explain why they're not responsible.) And if the iphone HD launch goes worse than previous launches, guess who's responsible for that.

Gizmodo is going to find itself where ThinkSecret is unless they get real lucky.

 

[cmaier]

Lets assume the guy left it in the bar, in the open. This guy is an employee of Apple. Who revealed trade secrets, Gizmodo or the employee.

Gizmodo. They published it. The guy who accidentally left it in a bar was careless, but he didn't intentionally reveal anything. And even if he HAD intentionally revealed it, they are not HIS trade secrets, and Gizmodo knew that Apple wouldn't intentionally reveal this information and that it was trade secret, yet they chose to publish it. The passage I cited explains all this.