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

mcmlxix said:
Yes the guy who found the phone and didn't turn it over to the bar or police and chose to sell it to Gizmodo was wrong, wrong, wrong.

But I think a lot of the posters around here are talking out of both sides of their face. Since last weekend most have been drooling all over this information. Now they want those who provided them with that information prosecuted. Fickle mobs.

FWIW, I think this phone was a a controlled leak. In that case, Apple wouldn't sue. Remember Gray Powell will be under oath, and I'm sure the defense won't treat him easily.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked a single spec. leak. It's a ****ing phone I could careless. Now the soap opera of Gawker made, that's interesting. I hope they go down, immature *******s.
 
SpectatorHere said:
I think the problem is that lawyers, like me, and those with some legal background recognize just how complicated this stuff gets. Talking turkey, Apple didn't have anything stolen, at best, they were deprived of the right of physical possession for a few weeks. Apple always retained best title and right to possession. Apple never even lost the most important rights, the IP....which will allow them to sell a bazillion of these. The finder is not going to be prosecuted. What I think most of you are arguing about is what other commentators have pointed out is under the law of trade secrets. I haven't studied trade secrets since law school, but I find it difficult to imagine that Gizmodo had any obligation or duty to Apple to keep it's secret iPhone 4 secret once Apple left their phone in a bar.
Click to expand...


If you are a lawyer (I am) you're a pretty bad one. There is nothing complicated about this. The "finder" has zero right to remove the phone from the bar. Zero. A patron left it behind. Clearly the patron would have a damn good idea where he left it, and would come back looking for it. The thief deprived him of the ability to recover it. He has no right to interfere with the owner's possession of the phone for an instant, let alone for a prolonged period of time, and peddling it is the icing on the cake.
 
SirHaakon said:
Well in my opinion, yes. But either way, he shouldn't be hanging out at a bar with a prototype iPhone in his pocket, birthday or not. Dude made a major mistake and now he's paying for it. Gizmodo had every right to publish his name as news.
Click to expand...

What!? They had no right to publish his name! :mad:

They're not publishing the name of the scumbag that sold it to them. Sounds shady to me...
 
trrosen said:
Here are some corrections.
Guy takes phone violating CA requiring him turn over such property to police.

Guy sells phone he doesn't own to tech blog. Tech blog, not sure who owner is, but sure its not them or the seller buys stolen property.

Tech blog, uses property they don't own to make money (known as conversion in legal circles)(illegal of course).

Tech blog realizes they committed numerous felonies say they didn't know it was stolen (there exact words) when asked to return said item by owner, which as we all know translates to "yeah we knew it was stolen"

There that should clear things up for you.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

However, let those who think 9/10ths trumps this to keep thinking so.
 
The question becomes whether Gizmodo, which paid $5,000 for the device, had an obligation to verify whether the seller was in legal possession of the device. Nick Denton of Gawker Media, Gizmodo's parent company, claims that the authenticity of the device was in question until they had purchased and disassembled it, and notes that they intended to return the device to Apple if it was verified to be an Apple product.
Click to expand...
LOL! I'd argue that Gizmodo went to great public lengths and costs to find the owner of the device, especially if they can show they called Apple. They really had no way of knowing if the device was legit (particularly if it appeared to be a non-working device) or if the guy selling it to them was a con man.

The guy who found the phone and realized he could sell it for $$$$ is in trouble though.
 
gnasher729 said:
(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The last sentence makes it clear in my view that by taking an iPhone prototype to a restaurant, drinking lots of beer and leaving the iPhone prototype behind, anything that can be learned from the iPhone prototype without breaking other laws (by damaging it etc. ) loses its status as a trade secret.



Let's say my brothers stereo system was stolen. I know exactly what it looks like. And I see someone selling a stereo system that looks absolutely exactly like my brother's for $20. Instead of calling the police or confronting the thieves and risking that they disappear, I buy the stolen goods for $20 and return them to my brother. I don't think there is any chance I would be charged. This situation is obviously difficult. I think $5000 was not paid for the phone itself, but for the chance of examining it - and Apple had at that point lost its trade secret protection. As long as Gizmodo can demonstrate that they always planned to return the phone, they should be in the clear.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I don't think Gizmodo has much to worry about. Apple wouldn't bite off hand one of their major pipelines to the tech world. The only person that likely has anything to worry about is the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo.
 
I think Giz lowered themselves to the level of the Enquirer on this one.. They knew the owner of the phone, knew it was unreleased/secret and chose to not only disclose trade secrets, but also the poor soul who made a mistake to the world.

Tacky.
 
I think Apple should file lawsuit and bankrupt Giz.
One less reviewer ain't gonna hurt no body.
I say this because while it's nice to get a couple
of blurry preview pics of new products, I think Giz
just went too far this time... feel they have been
unethical as well. PLUS... they spoiled
all the fun for the launch of the new iPhone.

Jobs is going to say "Today... I announce to you....
the next evolution in handheld computing... the new
iPhone......" and silence... everyone's already seen
the dang device taken apart.... see Giz spoiled it.

Burn Giz BUrn!
 
mccldwll said:
If you are a lawyer (I am) you're a pretty bad one. There is nothing complicated about this. The "finder" has zero right to remove the phone from the bar. Zero. A patron left it behind. Clearly the patron would have a damn good idea where he left it, and would come back looking for it. The thief deprived him of the ability to recover it. He has no right to interfere with the owner's possession of the phone for an instant, let alone for a prolonged period of time, and peddling it is the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
Not only does the finder have right to physical possession, but they have title which will hold up in any court I've heard of, except against the original owner if they are found to have truly lost property and not just abandoned it. For full title to vest with the finder you can see the California Statutes already listed above. You're not a lawyer.
 
Oh my gosh!!

Well, there dies another blog under the wrath of Apple.

Geez Gizmodo!! Couldnt you just return the god damn phone??? Now you Apple is going to use its power to shut you down forever.

It was nice reading their blog......ohh well as long as i still have my macrumors ill be happy. :apple:
 
wovel said:
Based on the information we have (published by Gizmodo for reasons no one will ever understand) and the law in California , he stole it. It is difficult to imagine how anyone over the age of 8 can believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, he didn't. You can *make up* what you believe reasonable efforts to return things in California are...but all you've done is make stuff up.

Calling the owner of the phone in an attempt to return it is reasonable. That's all the law requires.
 
bshammy said:
What really bothers me is the engineer's job is put in jeopardy so somebody can make $5000?! Is it worth that amount of money to seriously mangle this guys career?
Click to expand...

The engineer isn't in trouble because someone made $5,000. The engineer is in trouble because he took an iPhone prototype to his birthday party, got drunk, and left the phone there. We can all discuss here no end what the legality of the situation is, bad if the bar owner had picked up the phone from the table where it was left, kept it safe so that the owner can pick it up, and called Gizmodo to give them a chance to take photos for a $5000 fee, everything would have been completely legal.
 
Didn't know this...

Last month, Gray Powell visited the Gourmet Haus Staudt in Redwood City, Calif., to celebrate his birthday and apparently forgot the prototype at the bar.

That changes things a bit. My assumption was guy finds phone, can't easily return it, calls Gizmodo who is going to return it (after taking photos). But if this happened more than three weeks ago, then it is much harder to claim that they intended to return it.
 
People come to MR for information on the next releases, yet much of the information on here comes from other originating sites like Engadget, ZDnet and Gizmodo.
If it wasnt for these other sites, MR would have little to offer. I mean how much does MR really contribute to the rumour scene? Not very much at all.
 
Scooterman1 said:
How on earth does this article state that the iPhone was stolen? I thought it was lost, the finder asked around in the bar, and then sold it to Gizmodo.
Lost doesn't necessarily equate to stealing. But yes, when Gizmodo pays $5000 for something that they don't know is authentic? And a seller contacts them to sell it, I think the finder AND Gizmodo were pretty sure of what it was. And was the Video made explaining it was the new iPhone BEFORE it was disassembled?
Click to expand...

If you sell something that you found and wasn't given to you, it is stealing. I think that at the very least there is some shade of dishonesty of Gizmodo for buying the device. Having said that, I doubt Apple will take legal action. I bet that they ask that Gizmodo remove all images and videos from their web site though. The damage has been done already so maybe not even that.
 
Feel bad for the engineer

I'm pretty sure I would have played around with it for awhile, then reached the engineer, so that he wouldn't lose his job over this. $5000 isn't that much money. Wouldn't be to proud to spend it. Guess that's why I ain't wealthy.
 
mcmlxix,

Ridiculous. I check Macrumors frequently. On Monday, there it was, right near the top of the page. New iPhone pics and specs. Before I could even react, there was the info. If Macrumors had published a spoiler alert page, then it would be my fault if I had chosen to go and view the specs. But they did not, so any reasonable and frequent visitor saw the specs.

There's a big difference between seeing and noting the published specs, and viewing as contemptible the actions that lead to their publication.

Personally, I would have rather had the surprise on launch day, but I was not going to ignore the post that was right in front of my eyes.

There is no irony.
 
alhedges said:
Calling the owner of the phone in an attempt to return it is reasonable. That's all the law requires.
Click to expand...

And there is no evidence that the finder bothered to reach Gray at all despite the fact that he was able to access his facebook account and despite the fact that he made no attempt to contact the place where he found the phone to see if the owner had been in contact with the bar - not once in 3 weeks of the phone being in his possession.
 
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