Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back

[yetanotherdave]

Didn't Giz used to get invites to Apple events? They can probably kiss that one goodbye.

That article read like tabloid journalism. And poor tabloid journalism at that. Gary Powell, even if he has kept his job at Apple, is going to have a hard time getting employment in a similar field after this. Anyone googling his name will go "oh, you're that guy..."

They are now gutter press in my eyes. They certainly act like it.

 

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

This seems too nice for Apple. I was expecting black helicopters, a SWAT team with Apple logos on their uniforms and for no one to ever see or hear from Brain Lam or Gray Powell ever again. This must be the smokescreen before they strike.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Wow...I bow to Apple...well played..well played...

This has to be one of the best controlled leaks Apple has conducted....and anyone that seriously thinks a high profile Apple employee in possession of a prototype iPhone "forgot" it at a bar youd have to be totally blind.


This is Apple's marketing machine at full force...they are geniuses.

Anyone thinking this Apple employee was a high ranking guy must have their blinders on. He was doing what his job title says he does, telecommunications and field testing. It's completely reasonable that a field tester would be in the field testing the device and completely forgot it. Apple employees are human too, some are just more careless than others.

 

[theBB]

This isn't the case. Lost + found, then sold to someone. Perfectly fine on the someone, its the finder that should worry.

Knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime as well as selling it. You might think it is cool that Apple screwed up, but two months of advanced warning about the internals of an upcoming tech product is worth a lot of money to a company that contributes a lot to the economy of California. I hope prosecutors don't treat this as a childish prank and prosecute it as serious crime.

 

[jupp0r]

Yes. I've also heard of trade secrets, libel, and a host of other restrictions to it. You may wish to look into them.

Trade secrets? Come on: A trade secret, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) (A), (B) (1996), has three parts: (1) information; (2) reasonable measures taken to protect the information; and (3) which derives independent economic value from not being publicly known. (from wikipedia)

(3) - what economic value does Apple gain in the outer design of their phone not being published?

(2) - I think leaving it in a bar takes more lawyers to pass as reasonable measures than there are in the US

Libel? I don't like the design, but is it malicious enough to count its publishing as libel?

 

[kiljoy616]

I will never visit Gizmodo again. They completely ruined what a good number of people, me included, wanted to be surprised about. Then they want to be pricks and basically hold it hostage until they get hard proof that Apple wants it back. F them!

Chill out, that half the fun, are you saying your life sucks so much this is all that means anything to you. I don't care if I see the product before its time, if its a good product that I need I buy it, not because I got some obsessive high out of been surprised.

Seen your new GF in lingerie now that is surprise this is just plain funny.

 

[coleridge78]

That's BS and you know it. Sure, this doesn't have much to do with Giz and they can't violate trade secrets and other laws but the First Amendment is applicable to all, not just Government Entities.

What part of "shall make no law" do you not understand? Only the government makes laws.

The government shall make no law infringing on the freedom of the press... just as the government shall make no law infringing on my right to swing my arm until it hits your nose.

 

[jav6454]

1. I didn't say trade secrets applied to this case. I was pointing out that "The First Amendment" is not some blanket license.

2. You are again wrong. "Lost + found" is not recognized in the law, and buying something when you know or should know that the seller is not the owner constitutes the felony of receiving stolen goods, as well as the civil tort of being a convertor, among other things.

1. I never cited the 1st. Some other poster did.

2. Not really. The seller has no knowledge, then they/he/she can walk. In this case they had, but they had no knowledge what they were buying (could well be an elaborate forgery). However, in this case, the goods are not stolen as the owner did indeed abandon the phone. Proof? Remote wipe. No way of tracing your iPhone. So it means you gave up on it.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about on either the law or the tech.

Nor do you. I make my comments with examples, you just post what you think is wrong. Your law articles can easily be interpreted by anyone here as x, when it's y. Examples are key.

 

[jtp098]

Just like The Hunt for Red October!
"Call it whatever you want to... a Coast Guard safety inspection."




If you buy a stolen car the police don't refund your purchase price when they recover it.

No but ebay does

 

[coleridge78]

Trade secrets? Come on: A trade secret, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) (A), (B) (1996), has three parts: (1) information; (2) reasonable measures taken to protect the information; and (3) which derives independent economic value from not being publicly known. (from wik

(3) - what economic value does Apple gain in the outer design of their phone not being published?

(2) - I think leaving it in a bar takes more lawyers to pass as reasonable measures than there are in the US

Libel? I don't like the design, but is it malicious enough to count it's publishing as libel?

Again, I was only countering someone's ridiculous claim that the First Amendment's press protections are absolute. Don't confuse that with claiming any particular exception applies to this case.

 

[brewcitywi]

Joke!

I thought the story couldn't get stranger.

GIZMODO should immediately forward the unit to ADOBE, where they can reverse engineer FLASH onto it, and prove that it doesn't affect battery life at all!!!

In a related story, if you peel off the outer casing of a Zune, the iPhone 5G is embedded inside.

In another related story, the GIZMODO-recovered iPhone 4G has been secretly recording video the entire time, so we'll know exactly where it's been, and who has been gloating over it the past 36 hours!

 

[dmx]

I know the law is the law, but I highly doubt Apple will sue Gizmodo or the person that found it (if they find out who it was). It's just going to make them look bad. Apple is the the one that lost the phone. Sure, legally they probably have a case, but people are going to be sympathetic to the person who FOUND the phone, and Gizmodo will claim they didn't know it was illegal to posses it, they were just reporting on a device someone found and they got a hold of, freedom of press, etc...

 

[orangeillini14]

Gizmodo wrote in their letter back to Apple, "P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don't think he loves anything more than Apple."

They're the ones who brought his name out.

Now they're telling the kid to keep his head up.

http://gizmodo.com/5520496/keep-your-head-up-gray-powell

What a nice gesture...

That's like someone walking up to you, punching you in the face, handing you an ice pack, then proceeding to walk away. :|

 

[Geckotek]

Yes. I've also heard of trade secrets, libel, and a host of other restrictions to it. You may wish to look into them.

You need to go look up the definition of libel. And trade secrets only applies if Apple can prove that the information was obtained illegally.

The major assumption, doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make it false either. And it's not a major assumption, it's a well informed guess.

The First Amendment's "freedom of speech"/"freedom of the press" is applicable only to government entities.

HUH???

 

[larrylaffer]

The saddest thing about this is how Gizmodo decided to tell the world who lost the phone. As if the guy doesn't have enough to worry about, they go ahead and ruin the future of this young kid.

To top it all off, they paid $5000 to get their hands on the device. Congratulations Brian for committing for your first felony!

 

[ghostface147]

Chill out, that half the fun, are you saying your life sucks so much this is all that means anything to you. I don't care if I see the product before its time, if its a good product that I need I buy it, not because I got some obsessive high out of been surprised.

Some people just like to live as spoiler free as possible. That applies to many things for me, not just tech related items. What kind of surprise do I not like? The date that House had on Monday's episode...

 

[XciteMe]

There should have been a reply email:

Dear Bruce,

Cry moar

Sincerely,
Gizmodo

 

[kiljoy616]

Didn't Giz used to get invites to Apple events? They can probably kiss that one goodbye.

That article read like tabloid journalism. And poor tabloid journalism at that. Gary Powell, even if he has kept his job at Apple, is going to have a hard time getting employment in a similar field after this. Anyone googling his name will go "oh, you're that guy..."

They are now gutter press in my eyes. They certainly act like it.

You may be right but for most companies no one would care, I don't think the Cult of Oracle is going to care, oh wait there is no Cult of Oracle, or any other company I can think of been like Apple. Can anyone fill in what company people are talking about that is not about my stocks went up today.

Apple is unique in this.

 

[Pigumon]

From the Almighty Steve Jobs-

"You will go the Haus Stadt. There, you will announce yourself as Gray Powell from Apple and leave this horridly Sony Ericsson looking phone will Apple logos all over it on a barstool. For no sane reason, unthinking rumor mongers will believe it to be the next iPhone. We will continue with the real iPhone 4 in secret as usual."

 

[jav6454]

I know the law is the law, but I highly doubt Apple will sue Gizmodo or the person that found it (if they find out who it was). It's just going to make them look bad. Apple is the the one that lost the phone. Sure, legally they probably have a case, but people are going to be sympathetic to the person who FOUND the phone, and Gizmodo will claim they didn't know it was illegal to posses it, they were just reporting on a device someone found and they got a hold of, freedom of press, etc...

Ignorance is not admissible in court, you are still held accountable. They just have to prove they were following a lead on a case, but nothing is 100% and that they were investigating if it actually was.

Doesn't make it false either. And it's not a major assumption, it's a well informed guess.

Touché

 

[chatin]

Ives heads for shabby chic

Loads of my fellow posters were wrong about this but few have actually worked with these kind of prototypes or collected them. It's easy to understand how you got it wrong. Ives going into a new design period possibly shabby chic, retro handset.

I always thought the iPhone should look more like an old fashioned TV remote.

 

[techster82]

I think it would be pretty redeeming for Apple to let Gray Powell introduce the new iPhone at WWDC. Kind of play it up that he lost a prototype in the wild while injecting some comedy. Everyone can look back on this and laugh when we're holding the iPhone 4G/HD whatever in our hands.

 

[coleridge78]

1. I never cited the 1st. Some other poster did.

Indeed, so why did you reply?

2. Not really. The seller has no knowledge, then they/he/she can walk. In this case they had, but they had no knowledge what they were buying (could well be an elaborate forgery). However, in this case, the goods are not stolen as the owner did indeed abandon the phone. Proof? Remote wipe. No way of tracing your iPhone. So it means you gave up on it.

1. They bought it with the intent to buy something that was not the seller's to sell. That it might have turned out to be a fake is not a defense. It wasn't, and they intended to buy exactly what they bought.

2. Add abandonment of property to the list of things you're talking about on the internet without knowing what they mean. Hint: at least four people cited the relevant CA statute in the previous thread.

 

[Blacklabel34]

i think this was planted as a marking to drum up hype. Apple can now release the device early and have it ready to ship in June or sooner. Jobs can walk up on stage and say, "I think you might have already heard about this" and the crowd will eat it up. People withhold purchases of competing brands in anticipation of what they know Apple has and they continue to dominate.

yeah all of it seems a lil weird......*cough*marketing*cough*

can't wait to hear what Steve has to say about this

 

[JoeG4]

If anything bad happens to the dude "responsible" for this leak I'm never buying from apple again.