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:
LINK...where does it say it was in a case made to look like a 3G??? Where does it say the employee was a field tester??? A classfied prototype is NOT tested in a BAR where all the patrons could see and ask questions. NOT an ANSWER.
Click to expand...
From Gizmodo:
The case it came inside was a fully developed plastic case to house this phone to disguise it like a 3GS. This wasn't just a normal case; it had all the proper new holes cut out for the new switches and ports and camera holes and camera flash. But it looks like something from Belkin or Case-Mate. It's a perfect disguise.
Click to expand...
http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone?skyline=true&s=i

Gray Powell was an engineer at Apple who was field testing the device.
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone
Remote Wipe is part of MOBILE ME...seems it worked just fine. Prototype is going to have a different software package then the 4.0 developer release. Sorry, FAIL again...not proof. By the way having a Birthday is no excuse to have a classified prototype in possession in a public place.
Click to expand...
As a previous poster has already says, Microsoft Exchange allows for remote wipe too.
Yes, a prototype will use a different software package as the developer release, but it's still OS 4. It's the same OS, just tweaked slightly - like OS 4 is tweaked slightly for 3G, and tweaked slightly for 3Gs. It's still running OS 4 and still has the same bugs and issues.
 
ct2k7 said:
(408) 974-2042

to start with, and back up with an email to apple, and someone high up in the chain (with [a] photo(s) of the device)

I don't appreciate your sarcasm.
Click to expand...

The Media helpline? As if they know anything about a prototype? Good God, come back with something better than that next time you're put on the spot.

All this going back and forth just proves my point that there is no case. Have the authorities shown any interest in this? No. If it went to trial, what is the basis.... hearsay? The only people worthy of calling to testify would be the person who lost it and the person who found it. The person who lost it was clearly drunk, so there goes that testimony. An attorney will tell you to not waste his/her time.
 
You guys know Gizmodo's goin' down for this! Taking pictures of the device is one thing, but disassembling it? That's like finding a prototype car, tearing it down and then putting it back together. "Oops, sorry, guess it was real, here ya go!" That was a stupid move IMO.
 
RIP Gawker

The fact that Apple is completely silent about this could only mean one thing. There lawyers are still writing up the complaint and obtaining evidence. If Apple really didn't care and was going to let this go they would talk about it. The silent treatment means it's in legals hands.

If/when Apple files, Gawker is gone. It doesn't matter about the outcome of the case Gawker will be bankrupt long before it could get to a verdict.
 
I think it'll be good to get this kinda thing to the courts.

To me- It's the equivalent of someone "finding" a celebrities phone and then selling the phone to a tabloid so they can print pics off of it etc. Celebs have won settlements against this practice right? I know there have been suits filed.
 
Well to be fair, it sounds like the guy didn't do much to get it back to the owner... He should have just left it with the bar owner, or left his number with the bar owner so someone could contact him if the owner turned up.
Instead it sounds like the guy did a quick ask around to make sure someone wasn't about to punch him for stealing their phone and then did a runner with it.
To make matters worse he then went on to sell it for $5,000!! At that stage he clearly knew what it was (and it's value to others), which implied he may have known it's value when he took it from the bar...

I think he'll be lucky not to get a knock on the door from someone....


What i really can't get my head around is why Apple allowed it to go on so long for? Even when Gizmodo were publishing pictures of it, it took Apple a while to respond and when they did it was just a really weak letter asking (quite nicely actually) for their phone back... I would have expected a stronger reaction... Oh well. Who knows. This all makes great reading though! :)
 
trrosen said:
The fact that Apple is completely silent about this could only mean one thing. There lawyers are still writing up the complaint and obtaining evidence. If Apple really didn't care and was going to let this go they would talk about it. The silent treatment means it's in legals hands.

If/when Apple files, Gawker is gone. It doesn't matter about the outcome of the case Gawker will be bankrupt long before it could get to a verdict.
Click to expand...

No, they are being quiet because this was a controlled leak.
 
ShiftyPig said:
The Media helpline? As if they know anything about a prototype? Good God, come back with something better than that next time you're put on the spot.

All this going back and forth just proves my point that there is no case. Have the authorities shown any interest in this? No. If it went to trial, what is the basis.... hearsay? The only people worthy of calling to testify would be the person who lost it and the person who found it. The person who lost it was clearly drunk, so there goes that testimony. An attorney will tell you to not waste his/her time.
Click to expand...

I know they don't, but they do have certain information which would help debunk the fake iPhone. Are you sure the authorities haven't taken an interest in this? Maybe they are not publicly saying anything.

The owner of the bar would need to testify to say that he wasn't contacted. The bar staff, who finder apparently contacted would need to be testified.

I did state other method of contacting Apple, maybe you are oblivious to such and are poised on one point of many I am making.
 
Bevz said:
What i really can't get my head around is why Apple allowed it to go on so long for? Even when Gizmodo were publishing pictures of it, it took Apple a while to respond and when they did it was just a really weak letter asking (quite nicely actually) for their phone back... I would have expected a stronger reaction... Oh well. Who knows. This all makes great reading though! :)
Click to expand...
Gizmodo started posting on Saturday and it wasn't until Monday that it was clear that Gizmodo had something - not too unreasonable amount of time
 
Bevz said:
To make matters worse he then went on to sell it for $5,000!! At that stage he clearly knew what it was (and it's value to others), which implied he may have known it's value when he took it from the bar...

I think he'll be lucky not to get a knock on the door from someone....
Click to expand...

In the Gizmodo article the guy claimed to have played with the phone at the bar and took pictures (even stating the camera crashed on him a bunch). Anyone taking pictures with a Front cam would understand it's not a 3GS. Unless he's never seen an iPhone before (possible but probably not likely)...He knew what he had at the moment he left the bar.
 
troop231 said:
No, they are being quiet because this was a controlled leak.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this but you have no proof - Please provide proof that Apple did this. You can start by providing precedence that Apple would do this. With Gizmodo. Unless you have proof stop asserting it as fact.
 
pdjudd said:
You keep saying this but you have no proof - Please provide proof that Apple did this. You can start by providing precedence that Apple would do this. With Gizmodo. Unless you have proof stop asserting it as fact.
Click to expand...

Read my previous posts and you might understand.
 
ct2k7 said:
The owner of the bar would need to testify to say that he wasn't contacted. The bar staff, who finder apparently contacted would need to be testified.
Click to expand...

You really think this? Really?

Maybe I ignore your points because they're a waste of time. Remember... you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people that the man DID NOT make a REASONABLE effort to return the item.
 
Many of us have been saying this from the beginning.

The guy stole the phone, and Gizmodo knowingly purchased it knowing it was stolen.

The idea that you could not verify it was legit but would spend $5000 on it is absurd. The fact that they spent $5000 on it is evidence that they knew it was stolen property.

The unfortunate part it is likely that there will be no real punishment for the criminals involved in this, beyond an increased tarnish to the already dull reputation of Gizmodo.

I would like to see them made an example of, but Apple themselves don't benefit from such actions. The only hope is a zealous prosecutor decides to pick things up and pursue it criminally.
 
LagunaSol said:
"Finding" something doesn't grant ownership. If you come across an overturned armored truck, stuff your pockets with cash and then spend that cash, that's a crime.

The finder of this phone could easily have returned it to the rightful owner with a bit of common sense and reasonable effort. The moment he decided to sell it was the moment he crossed the line.

And Gizmodo is entirely complicit as well. And their endless milking of the situation has become embarrassing.

*Posted from my legitimately-owned iPhone*
Click to expand...

Armored Truck? Compared to a FOUND Iphone prototype wraped in a pseudo 3GS skin?

What is your defination of "reasonable" effort? To me, he contacted and called all the proper people HE knew of. Maybe he is not a nerd or techie like us to know who, where to contact apple.

Also the question is what did apple do to get it back? what did the engineer who lost it do to find it?

I think the point is there is no case, too many holes, too many assumptions. After all, Gizmodo gave the phone back. It was not theft on Gizmodo or the finder.
 
ShiftyPig said:
You really think this? Really?

Maybe I ignore your points because they're a waste of time. Remember... you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people that the man DID NOT make a REASONABLE effort to return the item.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it is doable. Try contacting them yourself and describe to them a fake iPhone. They say they will pass the information on and get back to you if required.
 
Working in product, if this had happened in my company, Grey would still have his job (but would lose his field-testing privelidges). ...but I'd blow mad money suing gizmodo into the ground just over the principal of it.

...I mean, full on scorched-earth. Lets see, I spent say, 20mil and hundreds of engineers worked a year and a half developing this thing, and a whole creative team developed our marketing strategy, and some kid steals one, sells it to this frickin mouth-breather slob at Gizmodo for $5k, who doesn't even have the decency to take a friggin shower and comb his hair when he obliterates our marketing strategy... Sh!@# yes, I'll blow an extra happy mil runing your life just for poetic justice.

Apple is showing considerable restraint.
 
Wow, only in America could we endlessly split hairs on the legality of this entire event. Unbelievable.

Guy finds phone. Finds name of owner of phone on phone's Facebook app. Knowingly sells it to someone else who is not said owner.

Crime committed. Guilty as charged. Case closed.

It's not this difficult, people, regardless of what the ever-lurking trolls want you to think.

This entire thread would bring a tear of joy to Bill Clinton's eye. :rolleyes:
 
NikeTalk said:
Yea yea, stop acting like you would have returned it. 99% off yall would have done the same.
Click to expand...

If you find someone's wallet with identifying information inside (e.g., driver's license), and cash or credit cards, you shouldn't spent the money, and you shouldn't sell the wallet to others. You should return it immediately to the owner. I've returned such things to their rightful owners several times over the years.

Why didn't the guy who found the iPhone just return it to Apple or to its owner after looking up his ID? I don't understand his motivation in selling it to Gizmodo. I think he should have returned it directly to its owner or to Apple.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.....
 
ShiftyPig said:
You really think this? Really?

Maybe I ignore your points because they're a waste of time. Remember... you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people that the man DID NOT make a REASONABLE effort to return the item.
Click to expand...
Right now we don't have anything official, we have no details on who he called at Apple that can be verified - much less if the people he called were in any position to do anything about his calls.
 
ct2k7 said:
Yes, and it is doable. Try contacting them yourself and describe to them a fake iPhone.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to leave it as that you probably don't understand the intricacies of the US court system, and hope that I'm right. I have law school finals coming up, I really don't need to spend my time educating everyone here.
 
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