Knowingly publishing trade secrets that one has obtained through inappropriate means, or has obtained from someone who you knew had a duty not to reveal the secret, renders one liable.
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.
Law Enforcement Reportedly Looking Into Circumstances of Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Knowingly publishing trade secrets that one has obtained through inappropriate means, or has obtained from someone who you knew had a duty not to reveal the secret, renders one liable.
His reasoning, as given by Gizmodo, is that it was the only level of support he could reach.
But his Facebook and Twitter are clearly public enough to be found (and show the profile pic with no other info- Gizmodo has it in "How Apple Lost the 4G iPhone" story), and you don't need to be his friend to either Tweet him or message him through Facebook.
So that's clearly ********. And I think any judge is going to agree with you that it was not a serious effort to return it, nor were phone script drones hanging up a sign of abandonment.
im thinking they already took it apart and examined it to the extent if they wanted to look at more they would have to break it. i would give it back an be like "ok if we give this back we want free iphones when it comes out" LOL
Interesting; it appears that California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act completely agrees with this.
Since the device was purchased stolen, Apple now has a civil suit against them.
Man, oh man. Did Gizmodo not consult any of Gawker's lawyers before going through with this hairbrained scheme?
Laws are made by humans and are fallible. They are often overturned or changed. Even our own constitution has been amended dozens of times. Just because someone says something should be one way doesn't make it "right." Heck, just because the majority thinks something should be some way doesn't make it "right." Slavery was once permitted under "law." Sometimes it's just better to use common sense.
One guy got drunk like a fool and abandoned his property. Someone else found it. Good for him. Hopefully Apple has learned a lesson and will hire more competent people in the future.
You don't like the iPhone but enjoy your iPod touch? So, what you don't like about the iPhone is that it has a cell antenna and gps?
It depends on the place, I guess. Where I grew up we left our cars parked in the driveway with the keys in the ignition all the time, and our front doors were never locked. I never had a key to my parents' house and never needed one. But in a more risky area I wouldn't be surprised if the police took the keys, locked the doors, and had a chat with the car's owner.
In any case, the authorities may not be able to prevent the theft of a car left open with the keys inside. They can, however, see that anyone caught stealing a car, despite it being left unlocked with the keys inside, is prosecuted vigorously, and that a severe sentence is passed on the thief. And then they can ensure that the conviction and sentence receive wide publicity. This might still not deter everyone, but the more certain you make punishment for a crime, the fewer people will be tempted to commit it.
And then there are places where the legal authorities are ineffective or corrupt. And in those places when you are caught with something that doesn't belong to you, the owner or his family or his tribe cuts off your hand--if you're lucky.
I like that way least, which is what makes me feel so strongly about the need for parents to instill some legal, ethical, moral, religious, or philosophical sense of right and wrong in their kids, and that failing, seeing that the authorities ensure that those who lack the sensibility to do the right thing for its own sake do it for their own sake.
Thanks for your generous comment.
Right. He could have:
1) mailed it to 1 infinity loop
2) handed it in at the bar
3) given it to the police
4) left it where he "found it"
5) called or emailed the guy whose facebook page he saw
6) etc.
He even could have brought it to gizmodo, asked them what they thought it was, and then asked them to return it to Apple for him.
Instead he sold it for $5000.
Right. The point is that by abandoning the phone, Gary is responsible for the secret no longer being a secret.
Yeah - a British trial lawyer not licensed in the California (or any other U.S. jurisdiction)
I admitted having no knowledge of relevant local, state, and federal laws as pertinent to the case, and asked if anyone could point me in the right direction if it was the case that Apple could seek such a lawsuit.
In a childish move, you not only provide no proof to back up your assertion (which I did find more easily than I expected thanks to AppleInsider), you post an image that does nothing more than serve as a personal attack.
I am disappointed. There are other forums where such behavior is the norm, but even if people completely disagree with what I have said here, they will usually back up their claims with proof, or if it's a matter of opinion, their reasoning in a respectful manner.
Anyhow, I was composing my post admitting that I was wrong as you posted that. Sorry that I don't meet your standards
Holy crap I hope you never find anything I lose.... Even my eleven year old knows better.
And common sense should say what the founder did is wrong.
Then again, I am beginning to think no matter what I say you'll find a way to justify theft.
Jesus Diaz is on a non stop b*tch fest
http://twitter.com/jesusdiaz
I hope this gets serious because it is entertaining
http://twitter.com/jesusdiaz
I hope this gets serious because it is entertaining
Gray abandoned nothing.
"Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that the true owner has no intention of returning to claim the item."
No one would believe he intended to leave it there.
I'm not defending theft. I don't see this as theft. I also have little sympathy for people who get trashed and do stupid things.
You have GOT to be kidding me.Any sympathy I may have felt for Gizmodo (which was almost zero with their childish behavior at CES 2008 that probably cost one or two people at presenting companies their jobs, or posting shock site porn on another Gawker blog and trying to hide it by posting it under the name of a blogger on that site) has now completely vanished.
Lol, somehow I doubt it. Boy was I wrong about this being a planned leak. This was wrong. It was dishonest to take someone's property, it was wrong to sell something that didn't belong to them and it was wrong to purchase something you knew was not from the owner and to make matters worse, post detailed pics with a discription?? To those who think this is stupid, that charges are being pressed and we are all just being crybaby fanboys, guess what, too bad. Justice is being served properly no matter what is said.
This whole mess confirms everything I've ever said about not treating bloggers like real news providers. Sites like Gizmodo are bloggers, not journalists. If this was a newspaper, with real journalists, everyone involved would have been fired already. But short of this criminal investigation, Gizmodo can do whatever the hell they like. Journalists have to take an Ethics class. What's the likelihood anyone at Gizmodo has ever looked at the course catalog for an Ethics class? Where is the professional code of ethics for bloggers? Or Blogger Ethics 101?
They're total fracking numb-nuts over at Gizmodo, but you can't sit there wringing your hands over the things they've done. Why do you expect any kind of standard from people who are not journalists? This, right here, is the sort of thing I expect from such people. The same bloggers who published rumors about Apple as if it was fact, and cut a big chunk out of Apple's share price in the process, over lies. Such mediums should not have that sort of power.
You can't get upset about your cousin with the single-digit IQ crashing your car - you never should have let him drive in the first place. What did you expect? He's not even equipped with any kind of capacity to do it properly, so you're the idiot for giving him that power. Gizmodo is the retarded cousin of the information business.
P.S. Guess who's uninvited to the announcement?
They're total fracking numb-nuts over at Gizmodo, but you can't sit there wringing your hands over the things they've done. Why do you expect any kind of standard from people who are not journalists? This, right here, is the sort of thing I expect from such people. The same bloggers who published rumors about Apple as if it was fact, and cut a big chunk out of Apple's share price in the process, over lies. Such mediums should not have that sort of power.
You can't get upset about your cousin with the single-digit IQ crashing your car - you never should have let him drive in the first place. What did you expect? He's not even equipped with any kind of capacity to do it properly, so you're the idiot for giving him that power. Gizmodo is the retarded cousin of the information business.
P.S. Guess who's uninvited to the announcement?
I admitted having no knowledge of relevant local, state, and federal laws as pertinent to the case, and asked if anyone could point me in the right direction if it was the case that Apple could seek such a lawsuit.
In a childish move, you not only provide no proof to back up your assertion (which I did find more easily than I expected thanks to AppleInsider), you post an image that does nothing more than serve as a personal attack.
I am disappointed. There are other forums where such behavior is the norm, but even if people completely disagree with what I have said here, they will usually back up their claims with proof, or if it's a matter of opinion, their reasoning in a respectful manner.
Anyhow, I was composing my post admitting that I was wrong as you posted that. Sorry that I don't meet your standards
Ugh, now you're making me explain it.
First, my post that you quoted was in response to another guy who ignorantly responded to a guy with a reasonable statement. If you did not read these, you should not have commented on my post, as what you said had nothing to do with what I said.
It had nothing to do with Gizmodo "trading secrets". It had everything to do with Apple and Gray Powell keeping the iPhone a "secret". With that said, do you know understand?
There was a viable reason backing my picture, but I forgive you.
SAD*FACED*CLOWN said:
SAD*FACED*CLOWN said:
jragosta said in direct reply:
jragosta said:
You were replying to SirHaakon, who said in response to jragosta:
SirHaakon said:
Your reply was talking about how it was the revelation of a secret via an analogy:
Salacion said:
I ask if it is legally considered such (disclosure of a secret, as in a trade secret, where Gizmodo/Gawker would be legally liable)
You call me an idiot.
Laws may be fallible, but these particular laws have evolved over the last 400 years or so from British common law, and we ought to be quite used to them by now.
Many of America's laws stem from American Common Law. Many of America's Common laws stemmed from British Common Law. So therefore...many of America's laws stem from British Common Law.
You do realize that America was was once controlled by the British, right?
Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but assuming you live in the U.S., and assuming it's not in Louisiana, your entire system of laws is based on British common law.
Also, here's one lawyer's analysis:
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/23/determining-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-the-lost-iphone/