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
The most noteworthy thing was really the construction, the fact that it appears as if they've nearly eliminated plastic and that the body is metal and the border is an extension of the body... and the ceramic back of course. But they filed a patent application for the latter in 2006 so it's not really news.
The move from plastic to metal could be something for competitors to consider, but they'll probably stick with what they know (and buy cheap). It's not like Dell saw Macs and hurried to copy the aluminum exteriors, they're using the same ol' ketchup bottle plastic they always have.
Speaking of that, this tattered piece of scratch paper, scribbled with lyrics, is up for auction, and expected to draw +$500,000.00:
Go figure - the scrap of paper itself is worth less than .01¢.
What trouble are you having with the definition differences between 'typical stolen mobile phone' and 'stolen prototype pre-production phone'. Use your dictionary yourself before lending it out. You do know the difference between 'typical' and 'original' at least, don't you?
I simply can't fathom how you and others can't seem to grasp the differences between stealing your $45 retail Nokia and stealing several million dollars worth of R&D.
Once it's actually mass-produced and released and sales recoup all that R&D, sure, then it's just another typical phone in peoples' pockets. But before that, it's not in the slightest bit any such thing.
PS. Even after mass-production, this prototype unit will *still* be worth more than any typical phone. Prototypes are collector's items and fetch high prices. Likely even more than usual for this specific unit given the unique circumstances around it.
Speaking of that, this tattered piece of scratch paper, scribbled with lyrics, is up for auction, and expected to draw +$500,000.00.
Go figure - the scrap of paper itself is worth less than .01¢.
If only to show the true worth of laugh rhyming correctly with photograph. None of this 'laff' business.
Exactly...I understand the theoretical "trade secrets" argument, but in actuality, this didn't reveal much at all
It just makes Gizmodo look even more foolish to have taken on these legal troubles for the sake of some poorly-taken photos that don't really tell us anything surprising other than the body.
Timeline
Here's a timeline for what it's worth. Feel free make additions/corrections and add it to the FAQ.
Here's a timeline for what it's worth. Feel free make additions/corrections and add it to the FAQ.
- March 18th - iPhone comes into possession of "finder" (gizmodo)
- March 28th - Wired.com received e-mail offering access to the device (wired)
- April 17th - Endgadget publishes photos
- April 19th - Gizmodo publishes external pictures and Chen video - they've been "playing with it for about a week"
- April 19th - Apple formally requests the device be returned (gizmodo)
- April 20th - Gizmodo publishes take-apart photos
- April 20th - dailyfinance.com reports Apple did not report loss of iPhone according to Redwood City Police
- April 23rd - Authorities execute search warrant at Jason Chen's home (gizmodo)
- April 27th - Wired reports people identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, quoting unnamed source: Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door"
- April 29th - Brian Hogan identified by CNET
- April 29th - Sage Robert Wallower identified by CNET
So right you are.
IP was compromised here, and Apple has every right to address the matter, in a way which will likely deter others from following suit.
What trouble are you having differentiating between the circumstances of the two situations and their respective threats to society?
There's the guy who picked up an abandoned phone and failed to return it to the person who lost it. And then there's the guy who uses the threat of deadly force to steal phones from innocent citizens.
Of the two, who would you want as your neighbor, and who deserves the prison sentence? Yet, who did the police choose to catch, and who did they let get away?
NO.
IT.
WASN'T.
Pay attention.
By the way.
Prototype does NOT mean that it's a production prototype, or that it's the same or even roughly the same as the next iPhone model released by Apple. It could, of course, or it could be a prototype that has advanced features that Apple deems aren't ready to the upcoming model, but may be ready for the model after it.
Think releasing that kind of prototype won't hurt Apple?
And what, pray tell, did Gizmodo release that would indicate such an assertion? And why, exactly do you have reason to believe that Apple would allow an employee to leave their campus with a model years away from release?By the way.
Prototype does NOT mean that it's a production prototype, or that it's the same or even roughly the same as the next iPhone model released by Apple. It could, of course, or it could be a prototype that has advanced features that Apple deems aren't ready to the upcoming model, but may be ready for the model after it.
Think releasing that kind of prototype won't hurt Apple?
Do you actually have any evidence to support your claims?
Does any evidence exist against such a likely premise?
The front-facing camera feature alone, may not be ready for this upcoming release.
If this were to be the case, the end result could be potentially damaging for sales.
It's not uncommon to have prototypes equipped with test features destined to be revealed beyond upcoming releases.
Do you bother to READ what people write? Because you obviously didn't bother to read what I wrote.
That's rather insulting.
Kinda why they call them prototypes...
Your comparison would be valid if the Apple engineer had his iPhone 3G stolen, where the police response would have likely been the same as per the mugger. Or inversely, had your mugger mugged someone for an iPhone 4G prototype instead, he'd be getting the Chen/Hogan headlines and police treatment too.
You really need to be able to understand the key difference between the stolen items in order to understand the different law enforcement responses. Which is the value of the stolen item, not the method. This applies to not only the police response, but also the punishment dished out by the courts. You keep trying to devalue the stolen item to fit your argument. In this case referring to it as "an abandoned phone" as if it were just like any other phone in anyone's pocket. Which it isn't.
If you honestly can't actually see the value of the stolen prototype iPhone then it's not within my ability to actually show you value that you can't see.
I'll give it a try though. Steal a loaf of bread from me at gunpoint, steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre by stealth. I know I'd rather have the art thief living next door (pretty obviously from anyone's personal point of view), but I also know the police response and headlines will all be about the painting and not my loaf of bread. Your whole argument is really apples to oranges.
I fully expect you to respond with another 'it's just a phone' comparison, because that's how you see it. If so, as I said, it's beyond me to make you perceive objects' value differently to how you see them. It's the same as people not seeing value in Apple's industrial design and paying extra for it.. it's just another computer. No argument will ever change the way they see Macs that way, that's just the way some people are.
For now, that's all it is. When Apple has real damages to claim, then it becomes more than "just a phone." For now, we have a handful of pictures of a prototype and ten-fold as many hypotheses about what the next iPhone will actually be like.
If Apple can point to the published info as the predominant reason RIM, Nokia, HTC, etc, was able to launch a similar device before or concurrent to the new iPhone, then it would be more appropriate to take more serious action. For now Apple is asking the San Mateo sheriff to jump, and they've responded with, "how high," all on the tax payer's dime (not to mention during a particularly bad year for public services in California).
This, of course, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not my use of the word "massive" was correct. Since you don't seem to disagree with that, and in fact seem to be attempting to construct a defense of the massive investigation, I'll assume your wayward comments were intended to more eloquently address whether or not this is a "typical" crime.
At the point of sale, the crime was perfectly typical. The finder of the iPhone had been a legal bearer of the phone since a good samaritan can plausibly make an attempt to return lost property. The moment the good samaritan turned into an opportunist, the crime was committed. However, the full impact of the opportunist's actions are not yet known. As such, it is improper to commit time and resources (which the department doesn't really have to begin with) that would not otherwise be committed to this type of crime.
The ONLY reason Apple is getting this kind of service from the San Mateo County Sheriff (despite the fact that it didn't even report the phone lost or stolen) is because of its wealth. If anyone here seriously believes that the San Mateo County Sheriff would have gone out of his way to help a small start-up with its lost prototype, they are exceptionally naive.
It's not that we can't grasp the difference, it's that we can grasp relevance. The phone may have had millions in R&D put into it, but that in no way means that it is actually worth millions (in fact, since the winning bid was $5,000, one might quip that it is worth $5,000). Moreover, crime is not enforced on a strict 'potential worth' basis. The outcome of wrong doing is typically the most relevant aspect to criminal justice. For example, if you get caught driving drunk you'll face a DUI, license suspension, and fines. If your drunk driving leads to death, however, you'll face a very different set of penalties. In much the same way, this story is currently at the "DUI" stage. The actions of the finder, while wrong, haven't yet produced grave negative outcomes.
This is really irrelevant. No one is seriously contending that this phone isn't special in some way. What we're trying to get across is the that the priorities of the police in this case are woefully misplaced. Until there is a more serious threat to Apple and its success as a business, the authorities need to treat the crime more reasonably and preserve their budgets for more serious crimes that actually put people in jeopardy of life and limb.
Does the increased worth of the prototype in monetary terms somehow justify its increased police attention? I mean it certainly is more than a $45 Nokia, but to the poor unfortunate person who faces the gun to their temple or a knife to their throat, that $45 Nokia can represent far more than just $45. Do you think that someone who is assaulted in such a way has suffered more loss than Apple has?
If not, is there a secret trick you use to determine relative loss? Does a more commonplace crime become less severe due to its multiplicity? Or is your trick simply to use dollar signs and ignore the rest?
Trouble is, Apple isn't doing the deterring. It's passing the bill onto tax payers. Nor is it very clear that IP has actually been compromised yet. Like I said, when it's clear that IP has been compromised because of this, things change for Jason Chen and his supplier...
I am quite sure that by leaving the iPhone in a bar (which was indirectly Apple's fault), trade secret status was lost on anything that the finder could find out about the phone without breaking the law. Like looking at it, opening the mail application or preferences to find the owners address, things like that. For trade secret status you must take reasonable care that the secret is not found out, and getting drunk and leaving a phone in a bar is not taking reasonable care.
If the owner had had a heart attack in the bar, was taken to hospital and his phone stayed on the table in the bar, that wouldn't have been his or Apple's fault (Apple can't order its employees not to have heart attacks), so everything would still be a trade secret and disclosing anything would be illegal.
And since nobody had the legal right to open Apple's phone, anything inside was still covered by trade secret status. Taking photos _after_ Gizmodo bought the phone _may_ have been illegal; it is clear that the owner didn't want them to take photos and publish them, and they could do that only because they were in possession of stolen goods.
That couldn't be more wrong. Robbery with the aid of a deadly weapon in California is punishable by 13 to 15 years in prison (Penal Code §12022) regardless of the value lost. Grand theft, 1 year (Penal Code §489). Are these not the very laws relevant to your assertion?
It would indeed be disgraceful if our laws placed more value on a phone than human safety; although, it would appear that the San Mateo PD and DA sadly disagree.
And your comparison would be valid if the Mona Lisa was abandoned at a bar, or inversely, if the subject of this thread had stealthily burgled Apple's campus.
Your misconceptions about the law are terrifying.
Crime is determined very largely by method, and then by actual damage (not potential damage). For example, trespass is technically the exact same crime as burglary in terms of action carried out (improper occupation of private property). The difference between these two crimes is intent (trespass needs no motivation nor method while burglary relies upon an intent to commit a crime once on the premises).
Involuntary manslaughter will earn you a few years in prison, while first degree murder could cost you 25-life. Both result in the loss of a life.
Accidentally setting a building on fire because of a poorly placed candle or leaving something on the stove will get you a civil suit for negligence. Set a building on fire intentionally, and you're looking at arson.
The list is endless. Motive and method matter a great deal in criminal proceedings, and are often the most significant portions of a sentence.
Well not really. The issue is the way prioritizing is done at the local police force. If a Parisian, would you care more about the security of the Louvre or the safety of your neighborhood? Would you give up your bread so the Mona Lisa can be returned to the Louvre?
Perhaps you have the luxury of caring about prototype iPhones because you are far removed from the effects of California's budget cuts. For those of us who actually live in the Bay Area, and have had to swallow enormously large budget cuts to our public services, this is an illegitimate use of the few dollars that are left.
In an ideal world maybe. We don't live in an ideal world. Not you in California. Not me in Australia. Not pirates in Somalia.
I mention the latter because what happens when somebody hijacks your dinghy at gunpoint? Fill out a form at the water police. They'll keep an out if it ever turns up again.. somewhere.. somewhen..
Somebody hijacks a tanker with hundred of mllions worth of cargo on it at gunpoint? Send out the fifth fleet. Frickin' lasers...
The scale of the crime is by far the most important factor in the law enforcement response. Even if it's an identical crime. In my example I was using monetary value of the stolen item as a scale. Other scales could be the fame of the victim/perpetrator. A classic recent example is Michael Jackson. California law enforcement in action right there.. how much of the money/time/effort put in Jackson's case would be accorded to the kid in South Central (or whatever they call it now) and his nobody creepy 'uncle'?
Scale can also be affected by media attention as well even if all other things being equal. Missing white girl. Statewide manhunts. For you or me, or missing black girls? Nope. Police are a dept like any other which needs to keep good PR so the Commissioner can keep his job. Seen to be doing its job properly when under intense media scrutiny and the public spotlight. So that affects their priorities as well.
This applies to trial and retribution as well. Can anyone seriously claim that hacking into my email will earn you 12 months in prison plus an additional 20 years for attempting to cover your tracks? I doubt law enforcement would even bother looking into my case at all, let alone catch the person and inflict maximum punishment. Yet it certainly looks like the case with Sarah Palin's email hacker, despite my emails being far interesting than hers (to me at least). Exactly the same crime, but because it's on such a much larger scale and media attention they're talking maximum penalties.
Ideal world where all are equal. It doesn't exist. Only reality. Where money and fame is the currency.
nah, this is a near production prototype for sure. Look closely at the picture below, notice a blue background with a white video camera icon.
WWDC advanced content, taken from the developer page. oh and just comparison sake, the normal mac osx ichat icon
I'm sure if the mugger who stole your iPhone ended up in a video holding it on a blog that gets millions of hits, posted your name and picture saying "look this is the guy we stole the phone from" and then sent you a letter requesting you acknowledge he had your phone the cops would have had a much easier time finding and arresting the mugger.
Unless a mugger gets arrested for something else and they find your property on him, or the serial # you gave them hits the pawn shop list theres not much they can do.
Unless a mugger gets arrested for something else and they find your property on him, or the serial # you gave them hits the pawn shop list theres not much they can do.
I believe the common law term is "mislaid" when the item is found in a place where the owner likely did intend to set it, but forgot to pick it up again.
It's "lost" when found where the owner likely dropped it or otherwise unknowingly left it and therefore doesn't know quite where to look for it.
It's "abandoned" when found in a place where the owner likely did intend to leave it, but it's in such poor condition that it's fairly obvious the owner has no intention of coming back for it.
Unless proven otherwise, this phone was mislaid.
Yes, except of course that California makes no distinction between lost and mislaid, and abandonment can be intentional regardless of condition.