Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined

SFC Archer said:
PROVE IT!

Why, would an Apple Employee, TRUSTED to HAVE a PROTOTYPE in his possession, take it to a BAR that is FULL OF PEOPLE and CAN SEE a digital device, then ACCIDENTLY LEAVE that SECRET PROTOTYPE in a PUBLIC PLACE when he left and then NOT ATTEMPT to call, track or contact the device before it was wiped????

I'm waiting
Click to expand...
According to the OP, Grey contacted the bar several times asking about the phone - this is directly from the bar owner.

My guess is that the decision to wipe the device was out of his hands - the phone contained classified info and wiping such data is SOP for companies the minute the companies knows that the device is lost or stolen. Besides, taking the device is pointless because find my phone is not functional in OS 4.0.

In other words, the fact the device was wiped matters not.
 
Rootus said:
I think Gizmodo better hope Apple doesn't take them to court, because it's a pretty obvious open & shut case. I also think they have cause to go after the original "finder" of the phone. All the rationalization in the world won't get them anywhere if it comes before a jury.
Click to expand...

Will never reach a jury tbf.

What is the basis for the open/shut case, out of curiosity? Remember, civil cases need damages - this isn't a "send someone to jail" issue.
 
Loser

Talk about a lame excuse, put him in jail, drive the company out of business, that will work.
 
ct2k7 said:
Apple will use the recent momentum of iPhone purchases. They're still selling out in my local O2 and Orange stores.
Click to expand...

You didn't quantify anything. You have to prove to judge/jury the number of phones that were not purchased because of the leak.

Edit: I would have purchased a phone, but I waited. And even at that, Apple wouldn't get $199, they would get the difference in profit margin, which there may be none.
 
timstl said:
Here's the thing, though: Why would Apple sue someone over all this free publicity? I mean, really, all they are getting out of this is positive media coverage. Not only is everyone talking about it, but they are also in Apple's corner. They should just let it go, and be thankful for the free advertising.
Click to expand...

Because it could affect immediate sales of the 3GS
 
iOrlando said:
gizmodo knew what they were doing and made a calculated bet that apple wasnt going to do anything in response and I think they are right in their bet. although the whole thing is messed up.

no reason for apple to sue them or press charges. too much press.

i actually doubt that apple would ban gizmodo from future product events as well.

dont forget, gizmodo was the place who first wrote about steve jobs being deathly sick - a much more personal subject to steve than this and gizmodo never saw a change with the way they get to go to events.
Click to expand...

Apple yanked all ads from Gizmodo for the story about Jobs being sick. You don't see any Apple ads on Giz now. Punishment for this could be no invites to the Apple events. And for my two cents.. The phone was stolen and Giz was wrong. I'm really disappointed in the way this was handled by Gizmodo it was my favorite gadget site now it's off my list.
 
stelriah said:
9/10th's of the law might work against them.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is not a defense when it comes to possession of stolen property. Simply because your defense is not verifiable. Therefore charges can be filed against Gawker. However if it goes to court, the burden falls on Apple to prove that Gawker was beyond a reasonable doubt either knew or suspected the item to be stolen. That will be tough to prove. However the guy that sold it can go to jail if he didn't do everything within reasonable means to return the property to the owner.
 
ShiftyPig said:
You didn't quantify anything. You have to prove to judge/jury the number of phones that were not purchased because of the leak.
Click to expand...

Again, it will affect the sales of the current iPhone. Apple have not yet made a public announcement that there will be an iPhone. Proving with statistics isn't true. Statistics can be used and abused. Apple would make a comparison to show the potential lost. This would justify as quanititative information at least in UK courts, and given the similarities, most like the US as well.
 
pdjudd said:
According to the OP, Grey contacted the bar several times asking about the phone - this is directly from the bar owner.

My guess is that the decision to wipe the device was out of his hands - the phone contained classified info and wiping such data is SOP for companies the minute the companies knows that the device is lost or stolen. Besides, taking the device is pointless because find my phone is not functional in OS 4.0.

In other words, the fact the device was wiped matters not.
Click to expand...

This is not an answer to "This also goes out to those crying "marketing ploy" and "intentional leak". There's just no way it's either of those"

It all starts and ENDS with the Apple Employee and why the "heck" was he taking a classified, prototype, to a FRIGGIN PUBLIC BAR!!! if its not suppose to be seen, heard of or used so that the public does not know about it. It is an advertising ploy plain and simple. NO ATTEMPT was made to call or locate the phone using all of the new and old ways of just plain calling the phone!!! Advertising scheme and it is working....it has made national news in papers and TV...floods the blogs and forums and the pictures are everywhere, Apple is soaking this up...FREE Advertising!
 
I'll just stick with the Gizmodo side of things here:

saxamoophone said:
Ok, don't compare this with just "somebody dropped a cell phone."

This was a super secret apple prototype.

While I don't agree with them giving $5,000 for it...

Gizmodo
A) Just took photos of it.
B) Gave it back to apple when asked.

...

What is the big deal?
Click to expand...

Actually, Gizmodo:
1) Paid someone $5000 for a device that the *seller* told them didn't belong to him. (Knowingly purchasing stolen property.)
2) Took it apart. (Potentially damaging said personal property.)
3) Made no attempt to return the device to Apple. (Surely *they* have contacts they could have used to get in touch)
4) Profited from the endeavor. (The articles and their associated income.)
5) Refused to return the device to Apple without a formal, written request. (Even after they *knew* the device belonged to Apple.)

There's not much wiggle room in there for calling it an 'oops'. They willfully and *knowingly* purchased stolen goods. How dumb can you get?
 
rodkill said:
Ignorance is not a defense when it comes to possession of stolen property. Simply because your defense is not verifiable. Therefore charges can be filed against Gawker. However if it goes to court, the burden falls on Apple to prove that Gawker was beyond a reasonable doubt either knew or suspected the item to be stolen. That will be tough to prove. However the guy that sold it can go to jail if he didn't do everything within reasonable means to return the property to the owner.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. Also, second bolded, that's also wrong. Third bold, debatable - what else are you supposed to do than call Apple? Rock solid defense tbh.
 
This is what should be going down at Gizmodo H.Q to Jason Chen et al.
 

Attachments

  • pulp-fiction.jpg
    pulp-fiction.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 52
Who cares if it affects 3GS sales? People would have to be stupid to buy one anyways if they would just research for 10 minutes, they would find out a new one is due soon.
 
The Apple employee may have left it there on purpose knowing that this other guy will pick it up and sell it to Gazmado. How would this guy know that it worth that mach and go to them to buy it from him. Something is fishy.
 
My two cents

Of course Gizmodo knew what they were buying just as well as the person who found the phone. But consider this my friends; the Apple Engineer who lost the phone in a bar technically didn't "own" the iPhone either. The phone was the property of Apple and no one else. If it is true the finder of the phone made several attempts to contact Apple directly, but to no avail, I could not (as a juror) find any of the participants of this three ring circus guilty of theft. Not to mention the fact that Apple remotely "bricked" this device, effectively turning it into a five thousand dollar paper weight. Just sayin...
 
ShiftyPig said:
Here's the thing though..... if you found something that was very clearly an Apple prototype phone, would you leave it with a bar owner who you don't know or would you keep it and call Apple in the morning? What is the bar owner going to do, throw it on eBay that night? You don't know. It is 100% feasible that a reasonable person would keep it to call Apple in the morning. Apple didn't retrieve it. Criminal case over.

There's nothing there. You can not like it, as many people have shown. But there's nothing there. This isn't like debating the iPad where nobody is right - there is in fact a right and wrong answer.
Click to expand...

How would the person that found it/bar owner know it's a prototype? I think you're assuming everyone follows Apple religiously like us...

The average person would think it was a normal iPhone. :)

Anyway, I'm done with this thread! Later guys/gals!
 
I hope some actions are taken in this case. And whatever happens to Gizmodo, they can't say they wouldn't of seen this coming by doing what they did.
 
ct2k7 said:
Again, it will affect the sales of the current iPhone. Apple have not yet made a public announcement that there will be an iPhone. Proving with statistics isn't true. Statistics can be used and abused. Apple would make a comparison to show the potential lost. This would justify as quanititative information at least in UK courts, and given the similarities, most like the US as well.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point... you have to say that Apple definitely sold this many fewer phones because of the leak. You have to go into court with a specific figure and a specific dollar amount that it cost you. The declining sales idea will be countered by the fact that sales decline every spring. And again, if the 4G has a higher profit margin than the 3GS - there are no damages, period.
 
SFC Archer said:
PROVE IT!

Why, would an Apple Employee, TRUSTED to HAVE a PROTOTYPE in his possession, take it to a BAR that is FULL OF PEOPLE and CAN SEE a digital device, then ACCIDENTLY LEAVE that SECRET PROTOTYPE in a PUBLIC PLACE when he left and then NOT ATTEMPT to call, track or contact the device before it was wiped????

I'm waiting
Click to expand...

The employee was a field tester - it's his job to go out and test prototypes in real-life situations. It was in a case that made it look like a 3Gs.

It was his birthday and he was drinking. He accidentally left the phone. Apple could not track the device because that feature of MobileMe is currently broken in the iPhone OS 4 beta.

Apple could not risk that the phone enter into the wrong hands, so they wiped it, hoping that it would either be returned to them (The employee reported it missing to police and was calling the bar), or upon realising the phone would not work, the person who found it would just bin it or something.
 
Theories on why this could be a controlled leak:

1) Anyone could have picked up this phone and thrown it in the trash ( just saying, not likely )

2) Some "joe schmo" picked up the phone and just happened to sell it to a huge tech blog aka Gizmodo, most average people wouldn't know what to do with it, but obviously this guy sure did.
 
ct2k7 said:
Don't call AppleCare
Click to expand...

Apple has the ability to route the call as necessary. There are four Apple phone numbers on the website. Should he have called the Apple Store? Jobs' house? I trust you have Jobs' number, yeah?

Point out the number he should have called.
 
troop231 said:
Theories on why this could be a controlled leak:

1) Anyone could have picked up this phone and thrown it in the trash ( just saying, not likely )

2) Some "joe schmo" picked up the phone and just happened to sell it to a huge tech blog aka Gizmodo, most average people wouldn't know what to do with it, but obviously this guy sure did.
Click to expand...
Or a competitor could have gotten it or it could have been sold to a competitor - that's a mighty big risk for a prototype to be "leaked" right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back