Pontificate all you want on alternate reality outcomes of what-if pipe dreams, meanwhile the legal case deals with felony theft and profiteering that can be tied to corporate espionage via the press.
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.
Finder of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Identified
- Thread starter sravana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pontificate all you want on alternate reality outcomes of what-if pipe dreams, meanwhile the legal case deals with felony theft and profiteering that can be tied to corporate espionage via the press.
And this has what to do with Apple's routines for retrieving runaway prototypes (you know, the alternate reality what-if pipe dream that became reality)?
Sure, you've convinced me you're right. And you could probably put the notice somewhere not readily apparent to casual observers of the tester using the phone. And you could easily draft the notice so it didn't advertise the importance of the device itself: "Property of the Dummy Corporation: contains classified military specification. Failure to immediately call this number will get you shipped to Guantanamo" ought to do the trick.
But you're looking at the whole board, which is very annoying. I only want to talk about all the trouble that rook over there is in.
(By the way, the guy doing subtitles on "Debby Does Dallas" led you astray. You "pique" curiosity, even if a peak might satisfy it.)
I'm sure Apple is having internal discussions on how to beef up their policies and procedures as we speak. We'll never know what their old policies were, and we'll never know what their new policies will be.
But when you say something like "Is it really that much to ask that they put a simple, anonymous "if found, call this number" sticker on this billion-dollar thing, instead of leaving it blank?" you are clearly implying that Apple let this poor guy down by not doing a better job of preventing him (or discouraging him) from lifting the phone and selling it to Gizmodo. Because, as I implied with my "wide array of options" comment, even if the phone did have a glowing sticker with a "Call if found" number, the guy probably would have ignored it. Why do I think this? Because he ignored every other common sense option staring him in the face. If someone is not going to do the right thing (as this guy clearly did not), there's no foolproof field testing method that will prevent something like this from happening again in the future.
A "Call if found" sticker would just have been one more thing for Chen to gloat about in his teardown photo tour.
The Wired article says they asked ("s[ought] permission] and were turned away. I prefer to rely on the original source material rather than Macrumors' paraphrasing.
This is all we know. They did not try to force themselves in. They did not refuse to leave when asked to leave. If they had, you can bet your ass their attorney would be screaming about it.
Maybe next time they'll be lucky enough that someone with a functioning moral compass (and buddies with functioning moral compasses) will find the device.
For all we know, this has already happened a dozen times in the past. But in those cases the finders did the right thing and all was well.
There is no system on Earth that can fully protect against human dishonesty.
As do I, the trouble is that we've been stuck with pretty much the same toolkit for several days. Knowing his identity didn't really bring anything new to the table, around which the patrons have "ZZZZZ" drifting out of their nostrils.
Dang. I always get one wrong once a month or so. Still, I'm a couple of notches above "nucular", "foilage", "could of" and confusing "its" with "it's", so I'm getting there.
Do I think that it's a bit extreme on apple's part? Yes. That phone is intellectual property of Apple. They have every right to be freaked out of any IP technology wasn't taken as well before returning it.
It's just precaution. You have to take steps to enshure to IP knowledge was transferred nor obtain. That's the reason it's extreme.
Apple is a multi billion dollar company.
It's just precaution. You have to take steps to enshure to IP knowledge was transferred nor obtain. That's the reason it's extreme.
Apple is a multi billion dollar company.
We got the new nugget - his friend "offered to" call apple support. That's considerably more vague and squirrelly than "he tried and tried to call Apple and they refused - REFUSED I TELLS YA! - to take their phone back - they said 'keep it, kid! and stop bothering us!"
Well, yes, but that's my very point. Should I sleep better at night knowing the police are more interested in propitiating large conglomerates instead of pursuing legitimate threats to our safety?
A reevaluation of priorities is in order.
Glad they posted his pic. There's a do-not-hire. He's either completely immoral, or lacking basic reasoning skills.
Redwood city isn't that far from Cupertino, he could have carried it back. Post Office delivers everywhere. If he didn't intend to return it himself, he should have left it at the bar.
I see no room for leniency here.
I don't think people are being hard enough on him. If you found a Mercedes parked outside with the keys on the seat, would you think it was right to sell it on Ebay? Take pictures of it, sure, maybe. But sell it to be disassembled, when it's clear who the owner is? No.
Redwood city isn't that far from Cupertino, he could have carried it back. Post Office delivers everywhere. If he didn't intend to return it himself, he should have left it at the bar.
I see no room for leniency here.
Happily... With extra nails to make it more painful and morally satisfying.
Goodbye middleman. Goodbye collegeboy. Goodbye Gizmodo.
I hate thieves.
California’s penal code, section 485:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
California’s civil code, section 2080.1:
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
Well, I'm not going to jump all over Manny, just because of what you said, but you might want to stay tuned. Maybe seeing what happens to the lives of these folks will change your mind about following their example. Even if they cut a deal and avoid jail, they're going to be "that guy" for a long time.
Turns out that dirtbags have a hard time getting people to trust them, which makes it hard for them to find jobs, date women, or borrow money.
But if the economy gets going again the folks hiring for the minimum wage jobs at MacDonald's won't be able to be so choosy, so with luck there's still that option open.
As I already pointed out by including the quote from the original article, MR made an unfortunate choice in choosing the work "attempted" when what actually reported in the article was
"people identifying themselves as representatives of Apple appeared at Hogans home seeking permission to search the premises, according to a source involved with the iPhone find. A roommate turned them away."
If you choose to continue to pretend like what he wrote in the summary is accurate and what the reporter who spoke to the guy wrote in the article is fantasy, you go right ahead. Some of us actually read the article.
Your loss.
No but the reporter who wrote the article spoke to someone who was...Yes the choice of the word attempted was unfortunately misleading, but probably not maliciously so. It should be corrected because people only reading the summary are walking away with the wrong impression.
We know what the person who was there told the reporter who wrote the article because some of us actually read it.
Gizmodo did in fact sy they "got it" but this guy says he only sold them the rights to the story. How was Apple supposed to know where it was? Certainly well within their rights to ask if they could look for it.
People have formed an opinion on their guilt based on their own statements. We can assume they had no reason to make themselves look guiltier than they are...
"people identifying themselves as representatives of Apple appeared at Hogans home seeking permission to search the premises, according to a source involved with the iPhone find. A roommate turned them away."
If you choose to continue to pretend like what he wrote in the summary is accurate and what the reporter who spoke to the guy wrote in the article is fantasy, you go right ahead. Some of us actually read the article.
Your loss.
No but the reporter who wrote the article spoke to someone who was...Yes the choice of the word attempted was unfortunately misleading, but probably not maliciously so. It should be corrected because people only reading the summary are walking away with the wrong impression.
We know what the person who was there told the reporter who wrote the article because some of us actually read it.
Gizmodo did in fact sy they "got it" but this guy says he only sold them the rights to the story. How was Apple supposed to know where it was? Certainly well within their rights to ask if they could look for it.
People have formed an opinion on their guilt based on their own statements. We can assume they had no reason to make themselves look guiltier than they are...
Gotta love lawyerspeak where
THIS:
Apple Guy: *knock knock*
Roommate: "Yes?"
Apple Guy: "Is Brian Home?"
Roommate: "No"
Apple Guy: "Can we come in, we have reason to believe he has item of ours?"
Roommate: "No, I don't think that's a good idea"
Apple Guy: "Ok."
BECOMES THIS:
"People identifying themselves as representatives of Apple appeared at Hogan’s home seeking permission to search the premises"
---
And...
THIS:
"Brian played around with the phone he found and instantly knew the exact name of the Apple engineer who had the phone via his Facebook app. Instead of contacting him directly, or turning it in, even though he knew it wasn't his, he then shopped it around to sell it to the highest bidder and sold it to Gizmodo for $5k."
BECOMES THIS:
“Brian opened the phone onto a Facebook page but then the phone shut down.”
(implying that it quickly crashed before any info was obtained)
“The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers”
THIS:
Apple Guy: *knock knock*
Roommate: "Yes?"
Apple Guy: "Is Brian Home?"
Roommate: "No"
Apple Guy: "Can we come in, we have reason to believe he has item of ours?"
Roommate: "No, I don't think that's a good idea"
Apple Guy: "Ok."
BECOMES THIS:
"People identifying themselves as representatives of Apple appeared at Hogan’s home seeking permission to search the premises"
---
And...
THIS:
"Brian played around with the phone he found and instantly knew the exact name of the Apple engineer who had the phone via his Facebook app. Instead of contacting him directly, or turning it in, even though he knew it wasn't his, he then shopped it around to sell it to the highest bidder and sold it to Gizmodo for $5k."
BECOMES THIS:
“Brian opened the phone onto a Facebook page but then the phone shut down.”
(implying that it quickly crashed before any info was obtained)
“The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers”
Exactly, dude! This is so like my situation -- I was outside a Detroit bar when I saw this cool looking Corvette unlocked with the keys inside. I asked a guy in the bar bathroom if he knew who it belonged to, but he said he didn't, so I drove it home. The car looked kinda funny, and when I removed some side panels, I found out it was actually a new unreleased 'Vette hybrid! I think some Chevy engineer must have been test-driving it, then drank too much when he stopped off at the bar and took a cab home instead of the car -- the engineer left his driver's license in the car. Well, my buddy said he'd try to call the local Chevy dealer's service department to see if they'd take the car back, but apparently they didn't know anything about it, so I figured instead that I could sell it to Road & Track and make some pretty sweet cash! They disassembled it and wrote about on their website, and jeez, the next thing I know frickin' GM knocks on the door asking about the frickin' thing! Fortunately my roommate knows all about the law, and says they can't go in the garage! Only now GM has bribed the cops to come by my house asking all sorts of questions. I just don't frickin' get it -- those bastards at GM have totally blown this out of proportion! Frickin' fascists!
Two of the most vocal people who have been arguing your side of things here are lawyers.
When I was robbed at gun point, and my iPhone taken from me, I didn't get ANY response from the police. The police had the full ability to track my phone (I even alerted them when I could see the phone had been used), and yet they closed the case the minute it was opened.
Quite frankly, the guy who took this prototype is not a danger to society, nor is anyone really harmed by this entire episode. Apple (and its most rabid supporters) can yell and holler about "trade secrets" or some garbage like that, but at the end of the day, it wasn't this individual who exposed the supposed "trade secrets" and made them vulnerable to detection. There is great negligence on the part of Apple and its employee here, and to suggest that already scarce state resources should be used to pursue such a petty crime is really indicative of failing to see the forest through the trees.
Unless of course the State of California has now decided that each and every lost mobile phone is worth a massive investigation, and in which case, I'd like to know where to file my claim.
Clearly Apple should get premier service from the justice system. I mean we all know wealth buys access to justice, c'est la vie, but I thought we were all suspending disbelief and at least paying lip service to the idea of equality.
If I make more money than you, is killing me a worse crime than killing you? Do you have a scale for such purposes, and if so, where did you find it?
Your willingness to defend Apple's actions on the basis of its economic value is embarrassing. Hedonistic calculus has its limitations; you should reacquaint yourself with some of them.
It's not like Apple is going to lose any of that projected revenue. If anything, this media circus will probably increase the already immense profile of the iPhone brand.