Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't see it as him being protected in any way at all. What, Apple will get a bad name from firing him? No they won't. Did Apple get a bad name from an iPhone prototype being lost and the holder committing suicide?

Apple already knew who lost the phone.
The outing makes this fellow a folk hero. People will buy him beers. (more beers). He's far less likely to be treated badly with a little public attention.

Moshe can't dump his body out of a fast-moving Mercedes on Stephens Creek Blvd.

C.
 
Did Apple get a bad name from an iPhone prototype being lost and the holder committing suicide?

That's because it wasn't an Apple employee, it was an employee of a contracted Apple manufacturer (Foxconn). I don't see how this guy would commit suicide, or how you think he would. From what I understand the Foxconn employee was emotionally distraught from interrogations that tipped him over to commit suicide (as far as I know). This guy will probably just get another job.
 
Apple already knew who lost the phone.
The outing makes this fellow a folk hero. People will buy him beers. (more beers). He's far less likely to be treated badly with a little public attention.

Moshe can't dump his body out of a fast-moving Mercedes on Stephens Creek Blvd.

C.

No it doesn't. It points to human error. People won't buy him beers. People will remember him for doing something rather stupid - bad attention.
 
My best guess is the tool who stole it shopped it around to various sites and provided pics/information to them. He may have even went to Engadget first, but Engadget not being a Criminal Organization run by potato heads probably just said, no thanks we will pass we are not big on paying for stolen property. They might have even suggested returning the device to apple directly.
That bears repeating. Especially the "potato heads" part.
 
No it doesn't. It points to human error. People won't buy him beers. People will remember him for doing something rather stupid - bad attention.

All of us. Every last human being on the planet makes dumb errors like this. Every day. All the time.

This milk is spilt already. No use crying.

And I certainly would buy him a beer.

C.
 
The finder was obliged to make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. This attempt was made.

Why are you and so many others assuming that the story told to and related by Gizmodo is true? John Gruber on his site just pointed out that Gizmodo's response to Apple's letter admits that the phone was "stolen", not lost. I think it is dawning on Gizmodo that it was hookwinked by a THIEF who stole the device from Apple and concocted this "I found this one night at a bar, tried to return it to Apple but they ignored me and now I'm selling it to you" story. It bought this BS story hook, line and sinker and unwittingly paid a thief $5000. That's why Gizmodo is completely silent on its site about the payoff. Its lawyers are suddenly worried that, hey, did we just buy stolen goods from a thief who fooled us with a preposterous story about what he "found" at a bar?

At this point, I give Gizmodo the benefit of the doubt that it genuinely believed the story that it was told but at best, that makes Gizmodo really really gullible. At worst, Gizmodo should have reasonably known that the lost story was highly implausible and most likely, they were being offered a device stolen from Apple. Paying for it may ahve gotten them in legal trouble.

I agree with you, we'll see how this play out in the next couple days.
 
The people at Gizmodo need to seriously DIAF. I hope Gray presses charges because what they are doing is causing serious harm.:mad:
 
Thank god the law doesn't work that way.

I'm not so sure about that. Gizmodo knew that it was publishing misappropriated trade secret information - it can make various disingenuous arguments, but they don't pass the laugh test. Its best defense is probably that most of the information had already been published by other blogs by that point, so it wasn't "secret" (e.g. 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185).

But the measure of damages would likely include the amount of lost sales of the current generation iPhone, assuming the court found that Gizmodo did indeed publish trade secrets.
 
I'm not so sure about that. Gizmodo knew that it was publishing misappropriated trade secret information - it can make various disingenuous arguments, but they don't pass the laugh test. Its best defense is probably that most of the information had already been published by other blogs by that point, so it wasn't "secret" (e.g. 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185).

No, its best defense would be U.S. Supreme Court decisions that protect journalists from publishing lawfully obtained truthful info - even trade secrets - that is of public interest, which is very broadly defined. That journalist's defense is not in the trade secrets law you cite because it's a legal doctrine developed in case law but it protects news organization who publish insider scoops. This was the defense cited by the blog Think Secret when Apple sued it for allegedly publishing trade secret a few years ago.

The legal question would be whether paying for this device strips Gizmodo of this journalist's protection, especially because Gawker Inc. has a publicly advertised and long-standing policy of paying sources. Think Secret never paid for its info so although Apple and Think Secret settled - with Think Secret shutting down - Think Secret would have won had the litigation continued. The question in that case was whether Think Secret qualified for journalists protection since it was a site run by a college student. I don't think there's any doubt Gizmodo would qualify as a news operation. What could trip them up is paying for the iPhone.
 
No, its best defense would be U.S. Supreme Court decisions that protect journalists from publishing lawfully obtained truthful info - even trade secrets - that is of public interest, which is very broadly defined. That journalist's defense is not in the trade secrets law you cite because it's a legal doctrine developed in case law but it protects news organization who publish insider scoops. This was the defense cited by the blog Think Secret when Apple sued it for allegedly publishing trade secret a few years ago.

The legal question would be whether paying for this device strips Gizmodo of this journalist's protection, especially because Gawker Inc. has a publicly advertised and long-standing policy of paying sources. Think Secret never paid for its info so although Apple and Think Secret settled - with Think Secret shutting down - Think Secret would have won had the litigation continued. The question in that case was whether Think Secret qualified for journalists protection since it was a site run by a college student. I don't think there's any doubt Gizmodo would qualify as a news operation. What could trip them up is paying for the iPhone.

As I posted in the other thread, I am aware of no such supreme court decisions other than those that go to "matters of public concern" (the Pentagon Papers being the most famous case). The matter of a new phone is not such a matter of public concern, so this wouldn't apply. I posted cites of two such cases. Is there a case that provides blanket protection for the press?
 
The finder was obliged to make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner. This attempt was made.

It could be argued that no attempt was made to deprive the rightful owner of the property. After all, as soon as the rightful owned asked for it was returned.
C.

First of all, California law, like the law in most places in the U.S. and elsewhere, has very specific requirements about what a finder of lost property must do before he can claim any rights in it for himself, and the finder of this iPhone failed to fulfill the law's requirements.

What troubles me though, is not that you are ignorant of the law or even that you appear to be quite confident in your legal conclusions despite your ignorance, but that you apparently have no religious, philosophical, moral, or ethical sensibility that would lead you to condemn the acts of the finder and of Gawker.

This iPhone is, after all, no different from a wallet, a handbag, or a three-carat diamond engagement ring. People simply do not willingly discard such things, and you must assume that if you find something of value someone wants it back. It belongs to them, not to the finder, and the finder must do more than make a few half-hearted phone calls before he can take the property away from its owner. Leave aside the law's specific requirements; wouldn't it be reasonable to leave the phone with the bar owner so that when the owner returns looking for it, it can be given to him? How about asking the bar owner if the occupant of the adjacent bar stool paid for his drinks with a credit card? How about posting a notice in the bar? How about notifying the local police department? If you don't trust the owner, then how about leaving your own phone number on the posted notice or with the owner. What if the wallet or purse had a driver's license? What if the iPhone had information stored in it that disclosed the identity of the user? Would you see no duty to contact the user by registered mail, overnight carrier, or by telephone? Would you feel comfortable simply selling the wallet, purse, or engagement ring for whatever you could get without taking all these steps first? Would you be any more comfortable selling an iPhone?

Is it right for Gizmodo to pay $5,000 to obtain the iPhone from someone who is clearly not the owner, who has failed to follow the law, and who has failed to do all those things someone who really wanted to return the phone would have done? Is it right for Gizmodo to open the phone, to take photos of it, and to publish it on their commercial website? Has Gizmodo any duty to try to find the owner and return the phone before it tries to discover its secrets and publish them? If Gizmodo had no right to possess the phone, no right to open it and discover its secrets, and no right to make its secrets public, does returning the phone when the owner asks for it take away any responsibility for what it had wrongfully done?

How do you really feel about people who have acted as the finder and Gizmodo's employees have? Would you want them for friends or neighbors? Would you ever really trust them? Would you want someone you care about to date them? Have they behaved in your eyes in a way you admire? Should our society encourage or discourage others from emulating the behavior of these people?

If it helps you answer these questions, pretend it was your wallet with $5,000 or more in it that someone found in a bar. At what point on the scale of effort do you conclude that the finder has done enough to justify his pocketing your cash? Just how careless or stupid do you think you have to have been in losing your wallet before the finder gets to spend your money? If you agree that you had been careless, stupid, or both to lose your wallet, do you think it is right that someone who bought your wallet from its finder should publish the story of your lapse for your family, friends, employer, and prospective employers to see?

The human race has spent a few thousand years coming up with consensus answers to these sorts of questions, and I'm just curious whether you have ever thought very much about joining us.
 
This is seemimg less likey to me.

A low level porgramer has access to take the phone out for the night?
He has the phone in a mock 3gs casing?,
It dons's have a pass codeon?
He doesn't go looking for his lost phone?
Who ever finds it plays with it and tries to take pictures?

It just dosn't add up.

Gizzmo only paid 5 grand for it. I'm sure it would be woth 10 times that.

Where are the details about the internals? ie what's the chip. Whats the battery mAH, part numbers on all the internals.

I can't believe you do a controled leak by leaving it in a bar. What if the "Random Drunk Guy" wandered off with it, then threw it in the bin when it wouldn't work?

I smell a scam.

Jobs is laughing his arse off right now.

Me too if I was right yesterday in another thread and when the new iPhone hits the market it's much different than this "LOST" iPhone:D
 
The people at Gizmodo need to seriously DIAF. I hope Gray presses charges because what they are doing is causing serious harm.:mad:
He'll probably press charges if his employer wants him to press charges as part of their overall strategy. If I were him, I'd be happy I wasn't fired. Mistakes happen, but he probably won't be doing much real world testing in the future.
 
Ha!

I just saw the supposedly iPhone prototype on the news. CNN will be talking about it in a bit more detail after the commercials. Hmmm....
 
I am calling ******** on this for the following reasons:

  • No pictures of the iTunes screen
  • No pictures of the internal components
  • The length of time Gizmondo has taken to post this
  • Gizmondo's general behaviour, on one hand it will name the employee, on the other its being extremely vague with certain details.

Something isn't right with this full story, I am sure it will reveal itself in time.
 
First of all, California law, like the law in most places in the U.S. and elsewhere, has very specific requirements about what a finder of lost property must do before he can claim any rights in it for himself, and the finder of this iPhone failed to fulfill the law's requirements.

What troubles me though, is not that you are ignorant of the law or even that you appear to be quite confident in your legal conclusions despite your ignorance

I bow to your obvious moral superiority.
These are your laws - not mine.

But since the law is about possession. And the rightful owner of the property will be re-united with their lost property (as is required by Californian Law)

Has any crime taken place?

If someone took my wallet, I would be upset.

But if I contacted the finder - and said - may I have it back? - and they agreed. I would not really be upset at all, I would express my gratitude.

C.
 
Another thing...

Please read this article if you think its strange why a "low level enginer" would have a prototype iPhone:

http://mobilitytoday.com/news/007758...testing_public

FoxConn will be tooling up the factory as we speak in anticipation of final production runs, the phone NEEDS to be tested weeks/months before it released. It is NOT unusual for Apple employees to test prototypes and certainly not by baseband engineers like Gray Powell.
 
Something to laugh about...

if it was balmer leaving a windows mobile 7 phone ... it would still be there... even the janitor who changes out the urinal mints wouldn't touch one.

LOL
 
The human race has spent a few thousand years coming up with consensus answers to these sorts of questions, and I'm just curious whether you have ever thought very much about joining us.

I read your post again Cartaphilus.

It is certainly filled with a remarkable amount of moral outrage over the temporary re-location of a single cellular telephone! It is impressive that you invest so much moral energy into the legal status of a trinket.

I wonder if you would do me a favour? Consider the possibility that there are even greater moral outrages happening around you all the time! Might I be so bold as to suggest the legal execution of children might be a good one to start on?

The human race has spent a few thousand years coming up with consensus answers to precisely *that* sort of issue and I'm just curious whether you and your countrymen might be joining us any time soon.

C.
 
Lets say you check your bank account and instead of having a balance of $2k you have 2,000,000 dollars in your account. You immediately transfer it to your Swiss Bank Accounts. Did you do any thing wrong? If you don't know that is wrong...

I said it before,a car is not a phone and especially not 2,000,000
Don't compare apple and pears.
 
As I posted in the other thread, I am aware of no such supreme court decisions other than those that go to "matters of public concern" (the Pentagon Papers being the most famous case). The matter of a new phone is not such a matter of public concern, so this wouldn't apply. I posted cites of two such cases. Is there a case that provides blanket protection for the press?

And as I noted, I think it is plainly a matter of public concern so it would apply. And I cited other cases in the other thread. It's your opinion the iPhone story isn't a matter of public concern; whether or not it is is precisely the bone of contention. Obviously, I think it is a public concern and therefore all the cases cited are relevant precedent, including Bartnicki v. Vopper, which is the key (and most recent from 2001) Supreme Court case on this question yet one you seem unaware of. It seems we may just have to agree to disagree on whether this would be of public concern.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.