Ha ha, sure. Come on over. Don't be too impressed though. The Mac Pros are research machines and weren't purchased by me (although I do get to use one at home).
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.
Circumstances Surrounding Lost Next Gen iPhone Detailed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ha ha, sure. Come on over. Don't be too impressed though. The Mac Pros are research machines and weren't purchased by me (although I do get to use one at home).
Apple probably pointed out the 'receipt of stolen property' angle in its call after the letter was sent.
But criminal prosecution is the least of Gizmodo/Gawker Media's worries.
Apple can make an argument that release of this information will depress iPhone sales. By the time the new phone is actually released they can probably show data that 3G/3GS sales attenuated more dramatically than they were tracking until the release of the specs of the next generation.
Say it's 100,000 units, @$500 each (Apple's revenue),
that's a 50 million dollar suit against Gawker.
Plus the release of proprietary information, can be used by competitors to adjust their products earlier. Damages from that could be enormous.
If Apple wants to push it, Gawker is in for a serious wakeup call.
You can't really argue that a prototype with the company's logo on it is just a piece of lost property. It's kind of obvious who it belongs to. It's not personal property. Paying to receive that property is very close to being criminal, but arguable either way. The civil damages are what could obliterate their whole company.
But criminal prosecution is the least of Gizmodo/Gawker Media's worries.
Apple can make an argument that release of this information will depress iPhone sales. By the time the new phone is actually released they can probably show data that 3G/3GS sales attenuated more dramatically than they were tracking until the release of the specs of the next generation.
Say it's 100,000 units, @$500 each (Apple's revenue),
that's a 50 million dollar suit against Gawker.
Plus the release of proprietary information, can be used by competitors to adjust their products earlier. Damages from that could be enormous.
If Apple wants to push it, Gawker is in for a serious wakeup call.
You can't really argue that a prototype with the company's logo on it is just a piece of lost property. It's kind of obvious who it belongs to. It's not personal property. Paying to receive that property is very close to being criminal, but arguable either way. The civil damages are what could obliterate their whole company.
Interestingly, during that public sighting of Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt, which happened about a week after the phone was lost, Steve was overheard saying "They're going to see it all eventually so who cares how they get it."
(I'm not saying Steve meant they did this on purpose, just that he could have been referring to this issue.)
(I'm not saying Steve meant they did this on purpose, just that he could have been referring to this issue.)
What a coincidence! How is it possible that the Gizmodo guy was sitting next to the Apple guy, and that the Apple guy simply just forgot his life-threateningly important super secret prototype device at the bar, never came back for it, and that the Gizmodo guy found it and kept it. I mean what are the chances that a magazine that writes about Apple stuff and gadgets, just so happens to find the perfect Apple prototype to write about, by accident?
I don't know, it's either very suspicious, or there was an enormous amount of luck involved!
I don't know, it's either very suspicious, or there was an enormous amount of luck involved!
The Gizmodo guy was not in the bar. The guy who found it at the bar contacted Gizmodo.
There's a couple of reaons:
1) Gizmodo didn't pay for access, they bought the device. The 'give it back NOW' letter from Apple and their response to it clearly indicates they currently have posession of it. That means they've bought good when they knew damn well the seller didn't own the property which can, indeed, be classed as receiving stolen goods. That's very very questionable and a LONG way from 'we found this in a bar and took some pictures' which is what they were hinting at in the beginning.
2) Revealing the name and publishing a photo of the guy that lost it is the lowest act I've seen on a tech website. It doesn't advance the story in any way whatsoever as this is some poor random employee who slipped up (no, I don't beleive it's viral marketing at this point as we're still two months away from launch and Apple don't bloody well NEED viral marketing, they're fine as they are) not Steve Jobs. In other words knowing who lost it doesn't add anything to our understanding of events and 'an Apple emloyee' would have done fine. The only reason for Gizmodo to publish a massive expose on the guy is to basically cover their own arse and try to get a defence in place by throwing this poor schlub under a bus. It's morally wrong, bad practice and utterly unnecessary.
Basically there are ways Giz could have approached this which would have given them the scoop AND dealt with the situation in a professional, ethical maner. They didn't take them instead thinking only of the fame and page hits. IF (and it is still an if at the moment) this turns out not to be a marketing stunt I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple releasing the hounds on Gizmodo and Gawker. Let's face it, Apple aren't scared of lawsuits and the money involved in bringing the case would probably be no more than a rounding error on their balance sheets.
Ohhhh, okay then it makes more sense. I thought "Gizmodo's source" referred to someone from Gizmodo!
I fully agree. It makes absolutely no sense that a randon employee (have anyone found out something about him yet?) takes one of the most prestigious upcoming devices from the (as we all know) highly secured laboratories from Apple to a bar and leaves it there like a $5 bill. Many people are discussing the legal consequences now but forgetting the hard-to-believe incident. I also don't think this is a controlled leak but it certainly keeps up the hype and the discussions of new features and so on - all in the interest of apple. And the letter? I don't think Apple will just send some short letter to demand the device back. Maybe they just wanted to test a new way to remotely wipe the iphone in real life. Congrats Applel, it worked ;-)
And many of you are right, Apple doesn't need viral marketing, but even the iPhone could sell even better.
But nice that they choose a German bar ;-)
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me you are mixing up intent and premeditation. When he saw the device their and picked it up, maybe he just wanted to look at it. When he exited the building with it, without telling anyone about it, that is clear intent to steal it. To not even ask if anyone still in the establishment was missing a phone means his intent was clear. The worst part is, it seems his actually story is he saw the guy who left it there so he knew the person just left it there and did nothing to turn it in or track the guy down. I just don't understand you can't prove this guy intended to steal this. Again just because he saw an opportunity to take it does not matter. He saw the guy leave it there, pocketed and left. His only intent was to take it. Anyone who did not intend to steal it would have turned it into a bar employee.
The fact that he made no normal or reasonable attempts to try and allow the owner to reclaim his property tells me his sole intent was to steal it. For all he knew it was the owner of the bar's best friend who stepped outside to get a cigarette. Once he picked up the object and concealed it and left the establishment his intent was clear. If he told the waitress, "Hey this guy left his phone here" or if while still in the establishment he called some numbers in the contacts list trying to find the owner, those would likely be a defense of not having intended to steal it.
However all of his actions point towards deception and covering up his actions, which I believe proves his intent in this case. At no point and time did he do anything a normal person would have done who was not stealing the item.
Like I said, I don't think any jury is going to buy his excuse that he did not intend to steal it, because most people would have a hard time accepting he literally did nothing to try and return the device or find its owner when he first found it. Which any reasonable person would know and expect to do to actually try and be successful at such thing.
The fact that the only actions he did that we know about is solicit bids on selling it/access to it, seems to support his intent was to steal it.
It would be one thing if you picked up a phone in a bar thinking your friend left it there and later found out it was not actually their phone. That would be a case of not having intent.
However knowingly taking something a person left on a table next to you, without telling anyone about it, or making a legitimate attempt to return it is all the intent I think would be necessary in this case.
It is unlikely the guy is going to be prosecuted, but I think he should be, because he is a dbag... Which is why he found a dbag website to pay him $5000.
Hopefully Engadget told this guy to pound sand and just didn't lose out to a higher bidder.
Its an iphone, the best selling smartphone ever. If you saw someone using an iphone, you aren't going to give it a second thought. This isn't like a test auto where its unlike anything else on the road. Its the same formfactor and close to the same size.
This is the biggest tech scoop I can remember.
Gizmodo has had this device for some while - so I think we can safely conclude that they have taken legal advice.
We also know that private conversations went on between Apple and Gawker before this point. It is even possible that yesterday's scoop was delayed at Apple's request.
If an item is in public - then a journalist can take photographs and write observations. They have those freedoms - thank goodness!
The finder of an item is obliged under law to make an attempt to return the lost item to its owner. It sounds like such an attempt was made. And that lets the finder off the hook.
If the owner contacts the finder - the finder is obliged to return it. This has now happened. The item will be returned.
If there is commercial damage from this, Apple can only blame itself. But actually I think the damage is only one of embarrassment. iPhone sales always decline prior to a scheduled launch. The sales of the new device will be stellar.
I certainly hope the individual who lost the phone is not treated too harshly.
By naming him, I think Gawker was attempting to protect him.
C.
this story doesn't make any sense...
apple declares the iphone to be lost by an employee but gizmodo claims that they bought the iphone for $5,000
i am highly convinced that they made up the whole story together to buzz about the new iphone
apple declares the iphone to be lost by an employee but gizmodo claims that they bought the iphone for $5,000
i am highly convinced that they made up the whole story together to buzz about the new iphone
You're wrong in this case. The dude made an earnest effort to return the phone both to the Apple employee, and Apple directly. Apple blew him off in customer service, and bricked the phone making finding the Apple employee harder.
Where have you been? He is indeed a real person. Trust me (yes, I have more to go on than linkedin/facebook profiles). See my post on the previous page as to why he would be carrying one.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
I don't think Apple's has claimed anything here, other than Gizmodo having a device of theirs. Gizmodo acquired it through an unnamed source, and the source acquired it at the bar referenced in all of the stories.
You would think they'd fire him, otherwise employees could see it as a pass to not be as careful while field testing prototypes. :shrug:
It's awfully well built for a prototype. Have you seen the micro-bevels on the volume buttons?
C.
In other news, Apple stock received a boost today on announcement that Steve Jobs's physicians have sourced a spare set of internal organs for the Apple CEO.
Apple declined to comment on the source of the organs.
Apple declined to comment on the source of the organs.
Random thoughts
Something potentially criminal is going on here. You cannot pay for stolen/found technology and post it to the world without consequences.
Some people say it is sad the Apple employee who lost it is likely fired - but if he is not fired Apple is crazy. His carelessness probably cost the company millions of dollars. If I had an employee who cost me millions of dollars, I would certainly fire them.
Something potentially criminal is going on here. You cannot pay for stolen/found technology and post it to the world without consequences.
Some people say it is sad the Apple employee who lost it is likely fired - but if he is not fired Apple is crazy. His carelessness probably cost the company millions of dollars. If I had an employee who cost me millions of dollars, I would certainly fire them.