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
Consider me gifted. On another note, what's with the TM in your user name.. I thought we stopped using symbols in high school?What happened was that we graduated from kindergarten!:
Well keepers -> Owners. We all know owners have the right to do what they want with their property. I'm sure he didn't have these "ulterior motives" when he found it, purely with the thought of keeping an iPhone, possibly as a cheap (free) upgrade to his current mobile.
I hope no-one criticising (AU) him or Gizmodo has looked at the pictures of the iPhone, the hypocrisy would be through the roof. (Rhetorical, of course you have)
This is what separates criminals from everyone else. Being able to try and justify your wrongful actions to yourself and others.
Not a mathematician, engineer or scientist, I take it?
there's no law against looking at published misappropriated trade secrets. We didn't steal anything. We didn't misappropriate anything. We didn't offer a bounty for stolen trade secrets. We didn't conspire with anyone. We didn't receive stolen property.
We haven't endorsed any of the above crimes.
Where, exactly, is the hypocrisy?
No.
They only way it would not be stolen is if Gray sold/gave it to the person who sold it to Gizmodo. So far nobody has ever mentioned that or anything like that.
Given the words of the criminals involved, and taking them at the value that they would try and paint themselves in a good light, there is no doubt or question the device was stolen.
The guy admitted to taking the phone out of the bar when it was not his to take. That means it is stolen.
Still would be stolen. The initial thief would be powell, and everyone else involved would be receiving stolen property.
I thought that Jon Stewart was dead on when he went over it in the daily show. 
is changing for the worse in a lot of ways. They still make the best computers tho. It is hilarious that the dude left it in a bar of all places. I guess theyll fire that poor dude.
is changing for the worse in a lot of ways. They still make the best computers tho. It is hilarious that the dude left it in a bar of all places. I guess theyll fire that poor dude.
You're reaping the benefits of an act. Last I checked, that's hypocritical if you're condemning the act.
No, I'm not a mathematician, engineer or scientist but I hardly see how that would appropriate the usage of a TM symbol next to the word Orange in his user name.
We didn't ask to "benefit" nor did most of us seek out the photos. The entire Internet, the local and national news, talk shows, etc. all revealed the photos. Were we supposed to preemptively close our eyes? There were no "spoiler" warnings.
No, there is no hypocrisy here. Hypocrisy would be us performing actions somewhere near as serious as these criminals.
your comment was about symbols in general
I thought that Jon Stewart was dead on when he went over it in the daily show.
The phone was taken on March 18. It is now May and, last we heard, Gray Powell still has his job at Apple. If Apple hasn't fired him already, they probably aren't going to.
Keep in mind that we've only heard one side of the story so far... the story told by the thief that took the phone. Perhaps Gray's story is different. It will be up to the police and the DA to decide which story has the most credibility but, personally, I generally tend not to believe folks that take what isn't their's.
Mark
Eurgh..what kind of an argument is that!?
I know plenty of people that haven't seen images of the prototype, even I, an avid MacRumors browser didn't come upon the pictures without clicking on the link specifically describing what I would find within. Let alone going to Gizmodo.
Way to extrapolate Mr. Mathematician, Engineer or Scientists.
Personal attacks are not necessary.
As for the substance of your argument, the ny times, CNN, jon Stewart, etc. all showed photos. So did nbc nightly news, and the local news in silicon valley If you read gizmodo or engadget they plastered photos all over their front page - no clicking required. A dozen photos showed up in my rss reader from various sites. No clicking required.
But none of that matters - it's ludicrous to compare even intentionally looking at the photos to committing three felonies (conspiracy, misappropriating trade secrets, and grand theft). The comparative behavior is so incomparable as to render mentioning them in the same sentence insane.
I have, and I'll admit that it has convinced me to order a 4G iPhone on day one rather than waiting until some time after the launch.
Gizmodo basically interfered with Apple's multi-million dollar marketing strategy, but in my case as I wasn't ever planning to buy a 3G iPhone anyway it makes no difference except an earlier sale. For others who are now actually cancelling their planned 3G purchase to wait instead, this would cost Apple. How many of the tens of thousands of potential weekly 3G sales worldwide have now dwindled down to a mere fraction after people have seen the new 4G on the BBC and other news sites?
Yeah... I was intending that if Powell was actually the owner of the phone to begin with...
I don't disagree with you, but you know how people are.. If I just said the circumstances and facts known prove it was stolen, so we don't need any more information someone is always going to try and caveat that with some unlikely scenario.
Yep. I pointed the same thing out earlier - based on the facts published by Gizmodo and the statements of Hogan's lawyer, that is enough to demonstrate that laws have been broken.
Wrong.
The act of 'keeping' is not necessarily synonymous with ownership.
One can find a registered Stradivarius violin unintentionally left in the trunk of a taxi.
The decision to 'keep' the instrument, instead of seeking its rightful owner, does not, by any means, imply transfer of ownership.
Really? What makes you so sure?
Precisely.
I know what was stolen – the iPhone trademark, from Cisco.
Apple's defense: "But we found it in a bar, it was just lying there! We were going to return it, we swear. We just wanted to borrow it for a while and see if someone wanted to pay to see it. Now, consider Chewbacca..."
World: "Uh, that sounds like a clear cut case of trademark infringement".
Mac community: "Awww come on, be cool, don't be narcs."
Apple's defense: "But we found it in a bar, it was just lying there! We were going to return it, we swear. We just wanted to borrow it for a while and see if someone wanted to pay to see it. Now, consider Chewbacca..."
World: "Uh, that sounds like a clear cut case of trademark infringement".
Mac community: "Awww come on, be cool, don't be narcs."
Sigh. Apple's defense was nowhere near that claim - The trademark of iPhone had pretty much been legally abandoned by Cisco as far as trademarks were concerned. Apple owns the name as far as the law is concerned - not Cisco. Cisco tried to sue, but Apple settled before anything could be decided.
Please read up on the legal concept of trademark abandonment - it is not comparable to this scenario.
Right back at ya.
It wasn't an attempt at a comparison of similar scenarios (my God you guys are one-track minded like Terminators), it was an observation on ethics, hypocrisy, double standards and reality distortion fields.
It would be better to point to comparable actions if that was your point. A trademark abandoned (not used in commerce) is no trademark at all.
If you want to bring up that point you cannot bring up situations that are not comparable. The Cisco dispute is oranges in comparison to Gizmodo's apples.
Everyone Has an Opinion, but Knows Nothing of the Law
I think that it's great that everyone is weighing in on this topic, but the simple truth is that the law may have been violated in the disclosure of this proprietary prototype. Anyone can claim ignorance of the law, but that doesn't excuse you from breaking it!
I was as excited as anyone to see the new prototype. I can't wait for the new models to arrive (and hopefully a Verizon compatible version) so I can upgrade from my 3G. This Brian guy has some moxie. I wouldn't have the stones to sell the prototype if I found it, especially for so little money.
I found an article explaining what the law says when you find something. Maybe if Brian Hogan had done a little research, he wouldn't be looking at a lawsuit and almost certain jail time. http://bit.ly/dig0xA
Take time to think before you act.
I think that it's great that everyone is weighing in on this topic, but the simple truth is that the law may have been violated in the disclosure of this proprietary prototype. Anyone can claim ignorance of the law, but that doesn't excuse you from breaking it!
I was as excited as anyone to see the new prototype. I can't wait for the new models to arrive (and hopefully a Verizon compatible version) so I can upgrade from my 3G. This Brian guy has some moxie. I wouldn't have the stones to sell the prototype if I found it, especially for so little money.
I found an article explaining what the law says when you find something. Maybe if Brian Hogan had done a little research, he wouldn't be looking at a lawsuit and almost certain jail time. http://bit.ly/dig0xA
Take time to think before you act.
Right, I forgot I was in internet lawyer land. Excuse me for not having access to well-published stories about Apple employees finding phones in restaurants and not returning them, although I'm sure the resident scheisters in here would find ways to argue that it's 100% incomparable because that phone was left in a Thai restaurant, not a German bar.
It's a perfectly serviceable platform for observations on double standards inside the Apple reality distortion field, not comparable but analogous enough.
I'm sure that Steve has been given a lot of speeding tickets over the years in his SLK, and I'm sure that the Prius-driving Birkenstock hippies over in Cupertino have smoked enough grass to cause clear skies in Jamaica due to weed shortage. I also remember plenty of MR discussions where I felt like the only one even remotely interested in law and order, whether it be about people's insistence that texting while driving is a basic human right or some other "come on, everyone does it" issue. That is, until iPhonegate when everyone magically turned into model citizens with uncompromised and unconditional respect for the law, acting so shocked and appalled you'd think Brian Hogan invented crime and that crucifixion is back in fashion again, not only as reasonable punishment for Hogan but for anyone who dares argue that "it's just a phone", Jon Stewart included.
And unlike normal discussions about legal matters where there's room for all sorts of viewpoints – be it playing devil's advocate, philosophical approaches or other – here, there is zero tolerance for non-compliance with the lynch mob train of thought, as if the notion of Hogan behind bars was a box of pacifiers jealously guarded by crybabies.