Details of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Saga Revealed in Search Warrant Affidavit

[cmaier]

Yeah, but as I clarified, I wasn't talking about legal negligence/responsibility. If I put my car keys on a store counter while I get change out of my pocket and forget the keys, that was negligent, but not in a legal sense like firing a gun straight up is.

People, people, people, the new phone isn't the 4G iPhone, just the 4th iPhone and 3rd 3G iphone (unless Apple wants to play games with names).

Actually your gun example is reckless under the law. Reckless is worse than negligent and often treated the same as intentional.

Negligent - not exercising a reasonable duty of care

Reckless - acting without regard to the foreseeable consequences

Intentional - acting with intent to achieve the bad consequence

 

[NSMonkey]

Do you even read??? I have stated over and over again that I do NOT CONDONE the actions of anyone else in this case. If and when the other parties are charged with a crime and IF they are found guilty in a court of law...NOT MACRUMORS...then they deserve any punishment that is ordered by that court of law.

I also stated that because of his actions that in part he is also responsible for the loss of his phone. And there is plenty of evidence out there if you just research, google and read. I have given plenty of evidence and links to support "MY OPINION" and yours come from?

Make up your mind, buddy. Earlier you said he was "just as responsible" as those who took the phone. Now he is only "in part" responsible? Well, you could just as easily say that we are all partly responsible for crimes committed against us.

I mean, if we had never been born, if we hadn't been in a certain part of town after dark, if our skirt hadn't been so short or, in this case, if only we hadn't enjoyed a delicious beer, the crime would not have occurred. Criminals try to make that kind of argument all the time. It's called "blaming the victim." Usually they lose, just like you're losing your argument in this thread.

 

[NSMonkey]

Eh?

It was sarcasm. I thought the second part of my post made that clear. You'll need to give me more than "Eh?" if you got that is was sarcasm and still have a question.

 

[ct2k7]

It was sarcasm. I thought the second part of my post made that clear. You'll need to give me more than "Eh?" if you got that is was sarcasm and still have a question.

Don't worry, I'm slightly autistic.

 

[arn]

I'm not really familiar with Apples side of the story so I was wondering if you could fill me in with a few details?

1. How is it known for sure that this iPhone was stolen and not lost at a bar as Gizmodo claim?
2. Assuming it is true that an attempt was made to find the owner of the phone, including as Gizmodo claim waiting for some time at the bar for Powell to return, why is the taking home of the phone viewed as an admission of guilt? It's entirely possible that he took it home intending to ring a contact number in the morning whilst less drunk
3. Upon the bricking of the phone and the discovery of the phone not being a 3GS why is the fact that Apple where contacted being ignored? Surely if this guy is a petty criminal as is being suggested then he would never have contacted them?
4. Why is the fact that Apple are pressing charges indicative that it was a theft? Maybe Powell was scared he would lose his job so made up a theft in order to preserve it?

Yeah, so I was hoping that could be cleared up for me. It's just it seems like people are convinced here that Apple are faultless and Gizmodo are in the wrong (and they probably are to some degree, although whether their actions are criminal or unscrupulous is another question) and I'm not really sure why, can anyone fill me in?

You need to read the linked affidavit. That gives all the details in a relatively objective account. The finder is definitely not innocent. He knew exactly what he was doing and knew the name and identity of the apple employee who lost the phone and said "sucks for him" that he might lose his job.

arn

 

[tingly]

Actually your gun example is reckless under the law.

I'm not worried about it, as long as you know I wasn't talking in the legal sense with my 100% stuff.

 

[bigchief]

Apple's Jobs Asked Gizmodo to Return 'Stolen' iPhone Prototype

Read all about it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...izmodo-to-return-stolen-iphone-prototype.html

 

[mccldwll]

Yeah, but as I clarified, I wasn't talking about legal negligence/responsibility. If I put my car keys on a store counter while I get change out of my pocket and forget the keys, that was negligent, but not in a legal sense like firing a gun straight up is.
.

You're not making any sense. Not every little misstep should be considered legally or personally negligent. Trying to impose those standards on yourself or others will land you in the nut house, or certainly divorced. Forgetting something occasionally, like keys on a counter, is not negligence. Knowing that you have that tendency and continuing to do so while not taking precautions, might be negligence. Things happen. People get distracted. Not every deviation from correctness is negligence. But firing a gun up in the air is far beyond mere negligence: It's recklessness and approaching an intentional act. And the legal consequences can be much more severe.

 

[thetexan]

I don't buy the argument that sales of current iPhones were hurt by leaking the phone. It's pretty common knowledge that Apple refreshes the iPhone annually during the summer and sales always slow during the time leading up to the summer.

 

[NSMonkey]

You know Hogan, screw you. It's people like you that make the world a lousy place. Civilization is people choosing not to crap on each other just because they can.

Honestly I think Apple's reaction is a bit over the top, but after reading how much willful thoughtlessness went into this from Hogan, I hope he does get reamed.

I couldn't agree more with the first paragraph. But how is Apple's reaction in any way "over the top"? The more we learn, the more it appears that Apple's reaction was completely reasonable and predictable. Apple made at least one attempt (email to Gizmodo) to recover the prototype without contacting the police. When that failed, they were left with a simple choice: report what they believed to be a crime or don't report it. You're not suggesting that it's "over the top" to report a crime to the police, are you?

 

[Geckotek]

Read all about it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...izmodo-to-return-stolen-iphone-prototype.html

This isn't news. Gizmodo said as much in their many original posts.

 

[gwangung]

I don't buy the argument that sales of current iPhones were hurt by leaking the phone. It's pretty common knowledge that Apple refreshes the iPhone annually during the summer and sales always slow during the time leading up to the summer.

It's far more common knowledge that your first sentence is wrong. See Osborne effect.

 

[Geckotek]

I don't buy the argument that sales of current iPhones were hurt by leaking the phone. It's pretty common knowledge that Apple refreshes the iPhone annually during the summer and sales always slow during the time leading up to the summer.

+1....crocodile tears from a CEO trying to justify his case. Nothing more.

 

[-aggie-]

This isn't news. Gizmodo said as much in their many original posts.

We should be seeing another article from Business Week about the Viet Nam phone any day now.

 

[Geckotek]

It's far more common knowledge that your first sentence is wrong. See Osborne effect.

Edit: Osborne effect is already in play based on Apple's predictable release schedule. The leak will have little if no effect.

 

[ct2k7]

Well I don't know about other countries, but I am seeing an iPhone advert on tv, about 3 times in the space of 5 hours, whereas, I used to see them weekly. Maybe they're trying to shift stock, but I am tired of the iPhone avert already!

 

[iLunar]

Gizmodo really has not been a tech-friendly site. After the entire CES debacle, and now the trafficking of stolen tech, not to mention the immature reporting and email-baiting, I'm really surprised tech companies will want to advertise with them.

If anything, I think anyone willingly advertising on Gizmodo gets a negative in my book. The editors are doing no favor to the industry for which they supposedly support.

There are much better tech blogs out there, and I hope advertisers take their money elsewhere.

 

[animenick65]

Giz better milk this story for all its worth, because they will NEVER be allowed into another Apple event again. I've come to despise Giz after this whole affair. What a horrible way to go about doing things, especially outing and mocking the man who lost it.

 

[tingly]

You're not making any sense.

"I neglected to pick up my car keys." "I neglected to consider the people around me when I shot into the air." What I'm not talking about is what the word means in a courtroom and how those acts would be interpreted there. I agreed with legal usage when cmaier made the same point, never disagreed.

I haven't gone on gizmodo.com on purpose for maybe 3 weeks, haven't missed it.

mmmmmmm camel uriiiiiiine

 

[marksman]

Considering American beer tastes like camel's urine and with the same consistency and temperature, it doesn't take too much imagination to assume he was commenting on what a good cold German beer actually tastes like.

American beer is for the most part supposed to be served cold, colder than you are supposed to serve most German Beers.

As for what might happen down the road with this stuff... I could see Apple running Gawker through the legal grist mill to the point of putting them out of business financially. Would not take that much relatively speaking, to likely run them into the ground.

 

[bookofzero]

It's a store/beer garden that closes at 10PM and he was there with his uncle according to the report. Just because someone drinks doesn't make them a drunk.

Hmmm, I am really curious as to what type of evaluation and quality of testing a drunk can provide???

Sorry, dont buy the taking a invaluable prototype to a birthday celebration involving alcohol and the sad story I see many posting about field testing.

I would never trust or use a drunks review of a product in that type of environment...Give me a break

 

[LoganT]

Being drunk doesn't make the guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo any less of a criminal. Just like if there's a girl who's highly intoxicated, and can't think for herself and you have sex with her. That doesn't make you any less than a rapist. If I left keys in my ignition with the doors unlocked and you stole it, you are still taking something that is not yours, even
if I did something stupid.

 

[NSMonkey]

Actually, we all screwed ourselves. The more you buy into something, you feed it with power. If the press keeps covering the same thing over and over again, it keeps the thing in top of mind. And it's a cycle, people start feeding the thing.

If you don't know by now, there's no nice guys around. Go read this book, The Second Coming of Steve Jobs. Or any unauthorized SJ biography. Authorized ones (if any) are all coverups. When SJ was down, he craved the media attention which he was largely ignored as a has-been. On his comeback, he treated the media like dirt. SJ doesn't do it for money? Are you kidding me? One dollar paycheck is like a big PR thing considering he's a billionaire. Not one millionaire or billionaire I know doesn't do it for the money. Otherwise they wouldn't be one. Never buy the rationale that Apple or SJ doesn't do it for the money. Look at their pricing and policies.

These online tech blog sites should all just stop reporting news or rumors about Apple stuff. The media can distance themselves too. I can bet that Apple will start to pimp themselves to these media. Well, the media can simply diss Apple altogether. You need to humble the bully. If you don't, everyone will suffer if the bully gets bolder.

Yeah dude, fight the power! 'Cause, you know, Apple is like threatening our way of life, or something. Their products are so awesome that they totally fool you into thinking they're worth more money than crappy products!!!

And, if you really think about it, it's totally obvious that Steve Jobs worships money. Everyone knows the best way to get ultra-rich is to sell cutting-edge tech products that are so expensive that your company almost goes bankrupt. That might seem like it doesn't make sense but, like I said, you have to really think about it, hard! It's like everything Apple does is meant to make a profit! Like they're a for-profit company or something. It's pure evil! Not like those unauthorized biographies, where all the profits go to charity and the authors are only trying save people from Apple's mind control ponzi scheme. Jeez, it's so obvious, why doesn't everyone see it?

 

[mccldwll]

"I neglected to pick up my car keys." "I neglected to consider the people around me when I shot into the air." What I'm not talking about is what the word means in a courtroom and how those acts would be interpreted there. I agreed with legal usage when cmaier made the same point, never disagreed.

I haven't gone on gizmodo.com on purpose for maybe 3 weeks, haven't missed it.

mmmmmmm camel uriiiiiiine

Oh. I get it. "I neglected to turn off the radio before I left the house." " I neglected to let someone else drive when I left the frat and drove home after 8 beers and 3 shots. My bad." You believe that if you can use the word "neglect" then all acts thereafter are morally/ethically/personally (even if not legally) equivalent.

 

[econgeek]

nevermind