Curious. What is this well known Mac magazine that you allude to but won't name?
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.
Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apparently, Apple knocked on that door mid-week last week. By then, Gizmodo had already owned the phone for about 10 days.
If Apple did, indeed, get that name and address from the roommate's iTunes account, I have no idea why they weren't knocking on the door sooner. But something tells me that Apple wasn't interested in creating news by hunting for the phone. They were probably hoping that whoever took it would simply throw it in a drawer when he couldn't get it to work. But once the story broke on Gizmodo, Apple started knocking on doors.
Mark
Gizmodo themselves said they paid $5,000 for it.
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone
From their own site:
Please note that the person who made that phone call, got a ticket number, which provides everything you need to know. And Apple most likely used the information from this specific ticket, instead of the information obtained by iTunes, because there is nothing in the iTunes and or Mac licenses about granting access to your home/room.
Gizmodo says they "got it" for $5,000 (read the story your self I am not linking over there any more). The person Wired spoke to was clearly coached by an attorney, this is probably why the police were keen to gather evidence before it was all changed. So you may be the editor of a well known Mac magazine. But the purchaser is much more ambiguous than you are about the nature of the transaction, but their actions and statements seem a lot more like bought than paid for exclusivity.
Since the person who sold it to them never had possession of it again after he got his payment, I think they are going to have a bit of a rough time
Super secret NDA, he can't tell you
I am not sure why someone would throw a statement out there in exactly the way he did, I have theories but I can not think of a way to post any of my theories with violating the TOS.I loved all the idle speculation for about an hour. My opinion hasn't been changed or swayed. I'm just waiting for some real news if the case goes to court..
Editors can pay for many things like an exclusive story but not a [in this case] "sale of the actual device". Which cannot be done, because that would simply be illegal.
Um indeed it would be. I suppose we will disagree on wether or not it is possible the folks at Gawker did something illegal.
Who said anything about granting access to someone's home? Apple simply had a name and address and knocked on a door. There was, apparently, more than one person. I wouldn't be surprised if police detectives were with Apple representative when they knocked on that door. The visit to that address apparently happened the same day that Gray Powell and his attorney filed a stolen iPhone report.
Mark
I'm not trying to defending Gizmodo, even if it sound like it, but it might be the case; They may have payed for an exclusive story, but I cannot be sure. Not without evidence.
I of course can only hope that this is what happened, because otherwise we [editors] are all open to [future] speculations. But one thing is clear, Apple learned from it [enter NDA's] and so did we. In fact we're still learning from it.
The point is that you don't have to open your door for Apple employees. And Apple itself can't use iTunes data without crossing a line.
I agree they may have, but I think if you have watched the way Gizmodo has written the stories over the past week, they never once indicated that is what they did. Several of the stories have been edited, some quite extensively sicne they were released as well.
I understand journalists want their protections upheld, etc. This however is not the case to hang your hat on. Best to let it go.
I only tell my dealer that I want Apple Inc stocks, for AAPL or APPL stocks in emules.(email + mule)
My view is that Gizmodo only had the right to return the phone to the engineer or to Apple. There are easily a dozen ways they could have done that without taking the phone apart, so they had no right to do it. It was none of Gizmodo's concern to determine whether the phone was an Apple prototype, a counterfeit, or if it had positraction. If you find my briefcase you can open it to look for something to identify the owner, but you can't start reading my diary cover to cover. And if the briefcase has a luggage tag with my name adresss and phone number, you can't smash the lock and look inside.
Remember, Gizmodo is a company highly motivated to discover and disclose trade secrets of Apple, a company that publicly solicited illegal acts in an attempt to get a scoop on the iPad. When one phone call to the bar would have gotten the phone back to its owners, they're going to meet more than a raised eyebrow when they try to paint themselves as good guys who were just forced to disassemble the phone before they could possibly locate the owner. The D.A. will make them look like such craven liars and thieves that they really could find themselves in jail for months
They are in desperate need of a good criminal lawyer, and as cmaier observed, Jason Chen needs to hire his own because his interests and his employer's just diverged. Otherwise they punish the monkey and let the organgrinder go.
Yes indeed. And you are right; Gizmodo did edit text on their website. Nothing new. We do the same, but only to add news or to fix a typo. Not to polish a story, or to cover something up. I'm not saying they did, but I had the feeling, and from day one, that something wasn't quite right with this 'story'.
Ah, I see your point now. They may have paid him $5000 to ONLY talk to gizmodo about the story, no other news outlets. That makes sense, although gizmodo's wording of it on their site was vague. They could be honest after all!
(still, did they have to plaster Gray Powell's info all over their site?)
I couldn't agree more. And when I ever get the 'opportunity' to have a look at some Apple prototype, then I will do the following: e-mail Steve Jobs to return it, and ask for a scoop. That's [IMHO] how it works.
Ah, I see your point now. They may have paid him $5000 to ONLY talk to gizmodo about the story, no other news outlets. That makes sense, although gizmodo's wording of it on their site was vague. They could be honest after all!
(still, did they have to plaster Gray Powell's info all over their site?)
No, they still took possession of a device that they knew didn't belong to the seller, and they kept it and they didn't notify the owner (Apple or Powell). Doesn't matter if they say they just wanted the "story" and maybe the nifty protective cover that coincidently came with a phone.
Thanks for the letter post. Interesting. And it should quiet some of the Apple Is Evil folks who think Apple has just jumped off the deep end without notice or cause. Gizmodo was warned in a fairly civil manner.
the keys could be in the car with the engine running and doors wide open, you would still be stealing it.
Exactly. They said it repeatedly. Denton said it as well. Of course people under criminal investigation will come up with some other story. David Letterman's extorter claimed he was selling a screenplay. The meth dealer claims "these aren't my pants."
You chief "edit" what?!: "how many times did I...told you people here....
That's sad. Is this Mac magazine written in English?
By the way, using unconfirmed stories as confirmation of anything is kinda lame.
It sure ain't Gizmodo!!!
But seriously, we can browse privately too. In our free time. Without being biased towards our own stuff, so there is no need to name it here... and yes; I should not have mentioned it.
The legal definition of theft is "A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent." And sorry, the "I promise to give it back later" defense doesn't make theft legal.