Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Let me first say that I couldn't make it through this whole thread due to the massive amount of back and forth debate, right vs wrong and so forth. I got three pages in and had to stop because people can be so...opinionated. So allow me to share mine.

Apple is 100% in the right. Teenager or not, this kid created a relationship with someone in a company producing parts for Apple, had those parts provided to him, then he created something with those parts (which were stamped with the Apple logo) and sold it to consumers. Anyone doing something so involved knows it's wrong. Being a teenager doesn't make you exempt from the law.

Yes, Apple is suing someone who happens to be young by most standards, but this "kid" is old enough to know that he was scamming a company to make a HUGE profit for himself. For everyone stating that he deserves the money because he put out the white iPhone before Apple - he put out a defective kit which had the exact flaws Apple was avoiding releasing to the public.

As many others pointed out, he didn't create a kit in his garage and sell it. Apple isn't attacking "the little guy" here, they're defending their property and their trademark. He effectively stole their hardware and released it to the public in order to generate income for himself. He shouldn't be praised for getting the white iPhone into people's hands; if people are so desperate for a different colored iPhone that they'd purchase stolen property to get it, that speaks volumes for that particular niche of the user base. Yes yes, they didn't realize it was stolen, but still, it speaks to the desperation for a different color that they're obviously buying a non-official kit instead of simply waiting.

So that's that I suppose. I've seen a lot of threads on MR and none have had such vehement negative comments thrown around about Apple. Like it or not, the guy was wrong and deserves to be brought to trial to resolve the issue. Apple isn't chasing down some kid with a fruit stand for selling apples, they're prosecuting someone for stealing from them. The legality isn't so cut and dry obviously, but that's what it boils down to. </rant> :cool:
 
I've never made $130,000 off of stolen goods I imported from China, no. There is something morally suspect here, but it's not those supporting the corporation (which isn't what they're doing anyway). If your kid (assuming you're old enough) came upon $130k, how would you handle the issue?

If this kid made $1000 off of this, not a big deal...but $130,000? It's not even as if the kid or his parents went to jail - BUT THEY COULD HAVE.

I don't have kids. I hope, when I do have kids, I will be aware of the things that they are doing and I also hope that I teach them to respect certain boundaries and consequences. But who knows; it's easy to say that now.

Kids have gotten up to a lot worse than what this kid did and I don't feel that we should be sympathetic to corporate interests (I'm also not saying that he should have been allowed to continue his operation.) When people at Foxconn off themselves (in numbers!) you get this "not our (or Apple's) fault" BS, but if you import discarded OEM goods then you're trafficking in stolen goods. I like how the responsibility is a one way street. Apparently a respect for human life ends at our borders, but respect for patent law is another subject altogether. The hypocrisy suggests a lot about what's left of our so-called values.

I know that I won't be teaching my kids that sort of moral "objectivity," if nothing else.
 
You rabid lot seem ready enough for a lynching. Scary, scary stuff.

I'm not rabid and I'm not ready for a lynching. I'm merely defending a private corporation's right to protect its interests.

I
'm gonna go out on a limb and say this kid didn't hurt anyone or present a significant risk to Apple's interests (which shouldn't be protected anyway, but apparently we no longer believe in "meritocracy" and any and every idea, notion, image, thought, gesture, etc. can be copyrighted by the multinationals and brought against children and their parents) and if you believe that apple is RIGHT for attack a KID and the kid is WRONG to the point of having his parents sued then your morality is suspect. Who endorses that sort of police state totalitarianism?

Whoa! Don't get your shorts in a bunch there. Police state totalitarianism? Where did that come from. First of all, Apple is not the state. It's a private corporation. And this kid was selling stolen goods.

If you think this KID is RIGHT for selling stolen goods and profiting from said sale and it is WRONG for Apple to to protect its interests, YOUR morality is suspect.

You all are going to tell me you've never stolen anything, ever? Threaten the kid with a lawsuit and be on your way Apple; this (frequent) legal severity is making me think of backing a different horse altogether.

No I have not stolen anything. And if I have, then I'm not going to demand that the rightful owner of the stolen items to give me a pass. If the rightful owner chooses to give me a pass, it's out of the goodness of his/heart, but he/she has every right to not do so.

Also, you should think about never listening to another song again without checking out the entire history of the label.

In this country the corporation is God and if you don't play by the corporation's rules then you pay the price.

Oh, please! Get off your communist high horse!!! No one is God here. If you steal from a corporation, then you pay the price. Otherwise, the corporation and you go your separate ways.
 
What a Microsoft move Apple! You're a multi-Billlion dollar company now, let the poor kid alone.

All that you have to do is say “OK, we will let the first one slide, BUT if anyone ever does like this to any of our products again then we'll sue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Just let that statement get out to the public.
 
Really? Seems to me "thou shalt not steal" wasn't a new idea even at the time Moses presented it to the Israelites on the tablets. How about the rule, "an eye for an eye?" People used to lose their hands over stealing an apple. All he got was a spanking and a public display so that others don't do the same.


actually, that's exactly what's going on here. People are free to act, but they are not free from the consequences of their actions.


You're right; until people are 18 years old, we should laugh it off and chalk it up to youth. They can learn and be responsible for their actions after they become adults. I'm sure that would make it a much safer society for all of us.


Seriously? Of course not. And even if I had, I'm not sure how that justifies someone else in doing it. I hope you're not a parent, b/c if this is what you teach your kids, we're all in trouble.

Christianity is relatively novel in regard to the history of civilization. Property law also included slaves up until a few generations ago. But I guess we've had the details pinned down tight since the bronze age, eh?

As far as people being free to act, that is only true to a point. First they have to make sure that none of their actions have been patented. Chances are though, if it's a phrase, or thought, or gesture, or codec, or manner of achieving some task or other, it has been patented and it is owned by a company.

The fact that we don't allow minors to sign contracts is an indication that I am not alone in assuming a child is not necessarily capable of foreseeing the outcome of all of his actions. Of course, I'm sure your kids are savants, so they should be subject to the worst extent of the law should they do anything "unchristian".

I don't believe that you've never stolen anything. I did not mean theft from a store, but the general sense of theft, which is pretty broad. If you deny this I don't believe you have any credibility. We learn the meaning of property; as a child nothing could be less natural.
 
What a Microsoft move Apple! You're a multi-Billlion dollar company now, let the poor kid alone.

All that you have to do is say “OK, we will let the first one slide, BUT if anyone ever does like this to any of our products again then we'll sue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Just let that statement get out to the public.

Wrong. "Well, I see that you just beat up your wife, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to beat up their wife goes to jail."

Or how 'bout this one - "Well, I see that you robbed this bank, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to rob a bank goes to jail."

The crime is relative, the action taken is not. You don't get a freebie. This kid made over $130,000 from his crime. He didn't steal watermelons from the grocery store and then sell them on the corner.
 
Wrong. "Well, I see that you just beat up your wife, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to beat up their wife goes to jail."

Or how 'bout this one - "Well, I see that you robbed this bank, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to rob a bank goes to jail."

The crime is relative, the action taken is not. You don't get a freebie. This kid made over $130,000 from his crime. He didn't steal watermelons from the grocery store and then sell them on the corner.

Well, since the punishment fits the crime I guess Apple should be held to the same standard. All profits they've made off infringed property should immediately be surrendered to the individuals who own them. Along with legal fees, etc.

Oh wait. It doesn't work like that when the roles are inverted.
 
Well, since the punishment fits the crime I guess Apple should be held to the same standard. All profits they've made off infringed property should immediately be surrendered to the individuals who own them. Along with legal fees, etc.

Oh wait. It doesn't work like that when the roles are inverted.

Nobody said it's all equal. Everyone who robs a bank doesn't get the exact same sentence. Apple chose to demand the money back in this case. They could've demanded he be brought up on federal charges and imprisoned for a large portion of his life.

I'm sure that Apple has done something similar in the past, and has likewise been put in their place legally. Did they have to do the exact same thing they're asking of this person? Not likely. If they had been would they have had to do it? Yes.

Legal backing is a large part of this. Obviously Apple has more lawyers than even the $130,000 could possibly buy this kid, but that's not all of it. They're also in the right. Doesn't mean they've never been wrong, just means that this time they're not.
 
Nobody said it's all equal. Everyone who robs a bank doesn't get the exact same sentence. Apple chose to demand the money back in this case. They could've demanded he be brought up on federal charges and imprisoned for a large portion of his life.

I'm sure that Apple has done something similar in the past, and has likewise been put in their place legally. Did they have to do the exact same thing they're asking of this person? Not likely. If they had been would they have had to do it? Yes.

Legal backing is a large part of this. Obviously Apple has more lawyers than even the $130,000 could possibly buy this kid, but that's not all of it. They're also in the right. Doesn't mean they've never been wrong, just means that this time they're not.

Brilliant! You're as "Right" as your legal team makes you, and it's merely coincidental that corporations have legal teams and individuals typically do not.

God bless democracy. Just like Jesus intended.
 
Brilliant! You're as "Right" as your legal team makes you, and it's merely coincidental that corporations have legal teams and individuals typically do not.

God bless democracy. Just like Jesus intended.

Again, didn't say having the most lawyers makes you right. Just means you have more might to fight the issue and prove right and precedence and so on and so forth. A team of lawyers is more likely to find a good offense/defense better than one or two singular lawyers. Especially when they're well versed on the legal standpoint of a single employer - Apple. Whoever defends this kid is gonna be new to his case and the situation.

You're twisting my words trying to make me sound like I'm wrong, and that's fine. If it makes you feel better to defend someone for stealing and then selling the stolen goods for a large profit, so be it. Just because Apple's a large corporation with a lot of money doesn't mean they should stand by and let people steal from them and undermine their business.
 
So apple had a press conference about it for what? A non-existant problem? :rolleyes:



My point still remains, how come apple didnt release the white iPhone 4 last june? If it is because it was defective, then why did they release a defective iphone 4 black. This kid filled a void, let him keep his profits and have him stop selling it.

Also I said I dont own a iphone 4, doesnt mean I havent owned one before.

If you can lose signal just by bridging the gap with anything, then there is a design flaw period! Whether it affects you or not on a day to day basis is pointless


The kid did not fill a void. He stole merchandise, and you can quibble and say he only bought stolen merchandise but he set it up which makes him just as guilty of theft as the actual person who moved the items. There is no justification for letting him keep a dime, in fact Apple was very merciful in that they didn't require him to pay for losses. Apple could have made a case that since the kid sold 130k worth, roughly 460 kits that that is 460 white iPhones sales they lost. In most situations like this the thief is required to pay for the losses incurred, which in this course could have been over 250k minimum, not to mention losses due to brand defamation. But the kid broke the law and should not profit a penny from it.

As for defective. The iPhone is not defective. It works exactly how all other cell phones do if you are in areas of bad signal and you attenuate the antenna. If there was a defect in the product it wouldn't be selling the way it is and would have had a mass return which it didn't. Maybe you had trouble using yours, that is your issue not the phone. If 100 other people can use it without problems and you cant then well your in the minority and that doesn't mean there is a problem with the phone, a defective product is something where the majority of users have the problem. Apple noticed some people were and made bumpers/cases available as a good faith gesture. The white plastic was not doing what it should for ALL of them in Apple's opinion so they held off till they decided it was providing the level of quality they wanted.
 
What a Microsoft move Apple! You're a multi-Billlion dollar company now, let the poor kid alone.

All that you have to do is say “OK, we will let the first one slide, BUT if anyone ever does like this to any of our products again then we'll sue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Just let that statement get out to the public.

Why should the kid get a pass?? He broke the law. Sorry but there are consequences when you break the law, and if hes under age then his parents should shoulder the burden for it, after all they are responsible for his actions till he is deemed old enough to know better. There is no justification for giving him a pass on this. It's time people stopped giving free passes to kids and maybe we wont have kids going postal in schools and shooting people if parents actually started parenting again instead of waiting to lay blame on everything else and expecting their kid to get a pass because "hes just a kid".

And if you give the first person to break a law a free pass then that's a horrible standard you are setting.
 
Again, didn't say having the most lawyers makes you right. Just means you have more might to fight the issue and prove right and precedence and so on and so forth. A team of lawyers is more likely to find a good offense/defense better than one or two singular lawyers. Especially when they're well versed on the legal standpoint of a single employer - Apple. Whoever defends this kid is gonna be new to his case and the situation.

You're twisting my words trying to make me sound like I'm wrong, and that's fine. If it makes you feel better to defend someone for stealing and then selling the stolen goods for a large profit, so be it. Just because Apple's a large corporation with a lot of money doesn't mean they should stand by and let people steal from them and undermine their business.

Drawing a distinction between Apple's patent theft and the patent theft of a child and then saying that a good legal team "finds righteousness" or whatever your point was doesn't require that I twist your words around. It seems pretty silly of itself. Apple doesn't "accidentally" steal either, btw. They have a legal team for a reason, and it isn't "honest mistakes."

If we were to hold Apple to the same standard that you suggest for an individual then the company would no longer exist.
 
Wrong. "Well, I see that you just beat up your wife, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to beat up their wife goes to jail."

Or how 'bout this one - "Well, I see that you robbed this bank, but we're gonna let you go with a warning. BUT - the next person to rob a bank goes to jail."

The crime is relative, the action taken is not. You don't get a freebie. This kid made over $130,000 from his crime. He didn't steal watermelons from the grocery store and then sell them on the corner.

Get off your high horse!

Obviously some actions doesn't need warnings at all. Gee, thank you for clearing that up brains. :rolleyes:

IMHO, this action does need a warning.
 
Why should the kid get a pass?? He broke the law. Sorry but there are consequences when you break the law, and if hes under age then his parents should shoulder the burden for it, after all they are responsible for his actions till he is deemed old enough to know better. There is no justification for giving him a pass on this. It's time people stopped giving free passes to kids and maybe we wont have kids going postal in schools and shooting people if parents actually started parenting again instead of waiting to lay blame on everything else and expecting their kid to get a pass because "hes just a kid".

And if you give the first person to break a law a free pass then that's a horrible standard you are setting.

Let's just sue them into the streets by a multi-billion company then! Even better yet, let's put them in front of a firing squad tomorrow at high noon. Steve Jobs can give out the commands, ready, aim FIRE!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

BTW, warnings aren't bad for business IF people know that you're dead serious about them.
 
Apple, you suck!

Picking on a KID!

Who did something that YOU COULD NOT DO!

I now hate Apple! :mad:

oooh......boo hoo.......looks like ya missed the whole point. The kid got parts illegally and then used Apple's trademark......Should we teach our kids that this is OK to do in society? Is that what you think the kid should get out of this? Of course Apple could do it, they just waited until it could be done properly not hastily.:confused:
 
Get off your high horse!

Obviously some actions doesn't need warnings at all. Gee, thank you for clearing that up brains. :rolleyes:

IMHO, this action does need a warning.

Oh you made $130,000 by obtaining parts illegally and you infringed on a company's trademark......ya better not do it again, I'm warning you!

Have you heard of our legal system? You need to grow up.
 
Ok, this thread is really irritating, you are acting like this "kid" is a 2 year old baby that got framed in an international conspiracy, he is 17 years old!! probably very close to or already 18 by now... as in legally an adult... he knows what he is doing.
 
Last edited:
Let's just sue them into the streets by a multi-billion company then! Even better yet, let's put them in front of a firing squad tomorrow at high noon. Steve Jobs can give out the commands, ready, aim FIRE!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

BTW, warnings aren't bad for business IF people know that you're dead serious about them.

There's a great message! if you make up to $130,000 dollars acting against my business, you just get a warning. Thats some good thinking there!
 
Ok, this thread is really irritating, you are acting like this "kid" is a 2 year old baby that got framed in an international conspiracy, he is 17 years old!! probably very close to or already 18 by now... as in legally an adult... he knows what he is doing.

I've never once encountered an 18 year old that knows what they're doing. ;)
 
I dislike you a lot less for supporting trafficking in stolen goods. Are you in the Mob also?

So, you like me for supporting the trafficking in stolen goods? I think you need to reword that.
No. I'm not in the mob.
 
I'm sorry, but this is really dumb. And I mean really, really dumb.
AGREED

Be reasonable here apple this guy saw the parts realised that apple wasn't gonna release the white iphone for a while and grabbed a business opportunity. Yes he sold unauthorised parts but maybe instead of suing him he obviously is good at business affairs maybe he could be employed by apple instead of being sued. If you are going to sue him don't involve his parents even though they'll end up paying probably it's his problem he has to get out of it
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.