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

Apple Demands Prototype iPhone Back

Personally i find the letter layout interesting.

Their address in the lower right.

and a COLORFUL :apple:??? isn't it supposed to be gray?
 
Geckotek said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need to go look up the part where I was responding to a general claim, not the specifics of this "occurrence".

Give that you think the First Amendment binds anyone other than the government, you also need to go do some of that reading that you are advocating.
 
brewcitywi said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
Nah, Adobe had it for 3.5 weeks and finally concluded that they couldn't rewrite Flash so that it wouldn't suck on the device.

So they returned it.
 
larrylaffer said:
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!
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much???

This guy's future isn't "ruined". :rolleyes: Yeah he's toast at Apple, but ruined? Like, two months from now he'll be curled up on his sofa in his grandmother's basement with the shades drawn, hasn't showered in a week, hair in knots, and mumbling "My life is over..." repeatedly?

He still has whatever degree he had, he still has whatever past work experience he had. He's not "ruined".
 
I imagine all the devices have prototype serial numbers in them. Apple wants the phone back so they know who to fire.

Then again since Apple did wipe the phone remotely as reported, I'd be surprised if they didn't already know who's phone it was.
 
Funny

techster82 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny! Someone here has a sense of humor!
 
Not the Iphone 4G

Guys, I am pretty sure this is not the new Iphone 4G, we are actually having a preview of the new Ipad 3G, with the nice front camera included and a new design/size coming next year.

Thats what I call a truly revolutionary and magic device.

Kudos to apple.
 
coleridge78 said:
Indeed, so why did you reply?



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.
Click to expand...

1. I didn't, I am simply stating it wasn't me.

2. True

3. Yes, the seller has to do reasonable search for owner. However, 3 days passed (a week at minimum) and owner didn't claim, also, they remote wiped the phone to ensure if anyone finds it, they can't access the contents. If I am not mistake, thats a feature Apple taunts via MobileMe if you feel its a lost cause and you give up. They wiped it. Gizmodo just has to argue this in court.
 
Remember too that the prototype was lost in mid-March, so there has been some time to go with a different design, more likely a backup design that has already been fleshed out. I still think its a prototype and the final case will be far more dramatic than the metal-encased brick in the pics. I'm personally looking forward to a crack/shatter-resistant ceramic back case.
 
if i was them, i would of tore every inch of it down before they were contacted.

Then they could of got a fat cheque from apple for silence.


lets be honest, were talking about a billion dollar company..... do you REALLY BELIEVE it was left in a bar? on a stool? hahahaha


lol
 
fine!

cvaldes said:
Nah, Adobe had it for 3.5 weeks and finally concluded that they couldn't rewrite Flash so that it wouldn't suck on the device.

So they returned it.
Click to expand...

Fine!!! have it your way! Funny.

I wasn't trying to make a political statement, I just wondered how much stranger this could get :)
 
gibbz said:
Giz could be in trouble for trade secrets issues
Click to expand...

What exactly did Gizmodo reveal that Engadget didn't reveal the day before? For those that keep asking why Gizmodo held off until today, well DUH, its quite obvious.

And there is no trade secret issue, atleast not for Gizmodo. Gizmodo was NOT the first to discuss specs or post photos. And for people asking why they didnt say what processor it used, etc etc. Well to skirt the letter of the law.

Was their theft involved? By the original person, maybe, probably. However, unless there was a police report filed prior to Gizmodo willingly giving it over, no charges will likely ever be filed.
 
jav6454 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet, they easily found who lost the phone including his Facebook and LinkedIn pages. How did they do that if there was no way to trace the owner? Give it up, this was a clear theft and Gizmodo is part of it. Being a journalist does not give them an exemption. It is not like what they did was such a public service like exposing high crimes in government. Time pressure on prosecutors who has to work on many different serious crimes is probably the only obstacle between them and felony convictions.
 
Interesting the publicity Apple gives to Jason Chen and gizmodo here:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/reviews/

Scroll down and you see they have a big logo for them.

Although I initially thought planned leak, I think Apple would have leaked specs or prices, not the phone. Leaking makes sense because the iPhone 3GS is a lame duck and lots of phones are coming out that best it in terms of number of features. However, I think if they and gizmodo were in on this, it would be illegal and considered stock manipulation. So I tend to believe this was not planned. However, the story about this guy being drunk at a bar--and the sequence of events of this other guy taking it--sound suspicious.
 
jav6454 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to rehash the California law on abandonment of property and theft by conversion for another 20 pages. If you feel examples are lacking, feel free to read the previous thread if Google (or better yet, a book) confounds you.
 
oh my head

Can all the "me to lawyer" stop sighting the first amendment or law.

Unless your a real attorney or are at least in your 3 year of school, you don't know squat. I know I don't know squat but people I know do.

Every state is different so arguing about Federal Law and Constitutional Law and what ever other law you think you know is pointless.

People who do law for a living have to take it to court to see what is what and even those laws change depending on precedence and a judges inclination.

But it is fun to read them. :p
 
theBB said:
Yet, they easily found who lost the phone including his Facebook and LinkedIn pages. How did they do that if there was no way to trace the owner? Give it up, this was a clear theft and Gizmodo is part of it. Being a journalist does not give them an exemption. It is not like what they did was such a public service like exposing high crimes in government. Time pressure on prosecutors who has to work on many different serious crimes is probably the only obstacle between them and felony convictions.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. How would Gizmodo feel if somebody found pictures of all of them having gay sex with each other? I guess they'd be OK with somebody else making money by posting the images all over the Internet.
 
King Mook Mook said:
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.
Click to expand...

BINGO! in fact, not only is the first amendment not EXCLUSIVE to the government, it's intended to protect citizens FROM the government. I sure hope that poster isn't a product of American public schools. :eek:
 
jav6454 said:
1. I didn't, I am simply stating it wasn't me.

2. True

3. Yes, the seller has to do reasonable search for owner. However, 3 days passed (a week at minimum) and owner didn't claim, also, they remote wiped the phone to ensure if anyone finds it, they can't access the contents. If I am not mistake, thats a feature Apple taunts via MobileMe if you feel its a lost cause and you give up. They wiped it. Gizmodo just has to argue this in court.
Click to expand...

Yes, and convince the court that the California law does not apply. Again, go read the last thread if you don't want to do your own research. "Finders keepers" isn't valid on the playground and it's not valid in California. I'm not sure why you think three days is an important cutoff, or that wiping the phone matters. There is a physical object, worth money, that was stolen.
 
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