I think you're right. Losing your phone these days is like losing your wallet. If you've ever done that, you know the horrible feeling you have. And that's just for a normal phone, not the uber-secret prototype. I think that, knowing that or having any empathy at all with the human race, 99% of the non-criminals in our society would have turned in someone's phone (or their wallet) rather than running off to make a profit on it.
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.
Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you're right. Losing your phone these days is like losing your wallet. If you've ever done that, you know the horrible feeling you have. And that's just for a normal phone, not the uber-secret prototype. I think that, knowing that or having any empathy at all with the human race, 99% of the non-criminals in our society would have turned in someone's phone (or their wallet) rather than running off to make a profit on it.
It's not about a phone or Apple. It's about a product that was stolen and exploited for profit with ZERO disregard for trade secrets, as well as, the implications it can cause for other industries and companies if Gizmodo or the original seller don't get prosecuted.
This is a HUGE deal, it will set precedence on future product espionage and how it is handled. I guarantee other corporations are watching this very carefully.
Hell, the only reason I'm posting about this is because I'm sick to my stomach reading about people that justify it or think it's no big deal... there should be some voices of morality here.
Wouldn't it be just a riot to see these companies disgorged of their profits from this crime and have to pay them to 
MR is not exempt from pandering and we're not exempt for being interested. That's not my point. I make no moral judgment on having excessive interest in Apple products. The point you are missing is that MacRumors did not commit a felony in its efforts to get us this information (same with CNN and the New York Times). Gizmodo apparently did. Once it is out of the bag, the news is fair game and very interesting. I'll also be equally interested in reading about the criminal trials when they happen, but I won't have any sympathy for those who committed the crimes. Most of us here wouldn't have acted this way.
I agree...
I've been reading through some of the posts and agree with some, specially that part where we know that some boundary has been crossed, some posts express anxiety, none of us would like to see Gizmodo nor Macrumors get into some type of legal squabble with Apple because in the end we enjoy these sites and over the years we have learned to fix our systems and/or helped many with their own tech-issues by visiting these sites, there is a tangible community here on Macrumors and at Gizmodo so to see this kind atmosphere is actually a let-down or an indication of a pathology.
Allow me to elaborate on the few misconceptions I've read so far:
1)It's a publicity stunt!: maybe if the iPhone was not known and it needed more exposure then I could say that.
2)Its just a phone!: its not just a phone but an elaborate gadget that has spurned both Apple, Nokia, HTC and Kodak to litigate and the outcome of those litigations can be measured in the millions of dollars or euros etc for all parties involved. A quote from Hamlet comes to mind:"...thats what happens when you come between the incensed points of mighty opposites..." correct me if I forget a iamb or two.
3)The guy who lost the phone will not get in trouble!: Yes he can get in trouble or even fired for negligence, but at least the story goes that he was frantic! yes I would be too and I feel for him (if its not a publicity stunt,wink) Apple's rules regarding employees losing high-profile prototypes is unknown to me but I know this leaves all parties vulnerable: both Gizmodo and the employee, its not a good feeling, Im sure the guy does not appreciate to be looked upon by the whole world as a fool for losing something that in MY hands would not of happen unless I was mugged or some other unfortunate fate happened to me. Someone mentioned Pick-pocketed,that may of happened, who knows! Gizmodo will spin it so it appears in their favor or that their complicity is within a benign spectrum.
As I continue to read the diverse posts, I see that the actions from Gizmodo has elements of recklessness! yet I love the site but you do get a sense that something is amiss otherwise we wouldn't be trying to convince ourselves otherwise...more later
I've been reading through some of the posts and agree with some, specially that part where we know that some boundary has been crossed, some posts express anxiety, none of us would like to see Gizmodo nor Macrumors get into some type of legal squabble with Apple because in the end we enjoy these sites and over the years we have learned to fix our systems and/or helped many with their own tech-issues by visiting these sites, there is a tangible community here on Macrumors and at Gizmodo so to see this kind atmosphere is actually a let-down or an indication of a pathology.
Allow me to elaborate on the few misconceptions I've read so far:
1)It's a publicity stunt!: maybe if the iPhone was not known and it needed more exposure then I could say that.
2)Its just a phone!: its not just a phone but an elaborate gadget that has spurned both Apple, Nokia, HTC and Kodak to litigate and the outcome of those litigations can be measured in the millions of dollars or euros etc for all parties involved. A quote from Hamlet comes to mind:"...thats what happens when you come between the incensed points of mighty opposites..." correct me if I forget a iamb or two.
3)The guy who lost the phone will not get in trouble!: Yes he can get in trouble or even fired for negligence, but at least the story goes that he was frantic! yes I would be too and I feel for him (if its not a publicity stunt,wink) Apple's rules regarding employees losing high-profile prototypes is unknown to me but I know this leaves all parties vulnerable: both Gizmodo and the employee, its not a good feeling, Im sure the guy does not appreciate to be looked upon by the whole world as a fool for losing something that in MY hands would not of happen unless I was mugged or some other unfortunate fate happened to me. Someone mentioned Pick-pocketed,that may of happened, who knows! Gizmodo will spin it so it appears in their favor or that their complicity is within a benign spectrum.
As I continue to read the diverse posts, I see that the actions from Gizmodo has elements of recklessness! yet I love the site but you do get a sense that something is amiss otherwise we wouldn't be trying to convince ourselves otherwise...more later
It's not as easy as it sounds
You gotta remember there's a difference between questioning the morality of gizmodo or the finder's actions and questioning the legality.
I'm not convinced that they need to be so worried legally. As far as criminally the standard is still the highest it will ever be in any court, "beyond a reasonable doubt". You can't imply motive, you'd have to show that finder meant to steal the phone and that gizmodo knew it was stolen. trust me, no police department is going to go through the trouble of drafting an arrest warrant for gizmodo based on these "facts". As far as civilly, lower standard but then you have the 1st amendment to deal with and the fact that "accidental disclosure" of a trade secret is a defense.
I'm not saying I'd laugh it off if I was gizmodo but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either.
Now, Apple's press conferences are their press conferences so if they wanted to boot gizmodo from all future ones they could and there's noting gizmodo could do about it.
You gotta remember there's a difference between questioning the morality of gizmodo or the finder's actions and questioning the legality.
I'm not convinced that they need to be so worried legally. As far as criminally the standard is still the highest it will ever be in any court, "beyond a reasonable doubt". You can't imply motive, you'd have to show that finder meant to steal the phone and that gizmodo knew it was stolen. trust me, no police department is going to go through the trouble of drafting an arrest warrant for gizmodo based on these "facts". As far as civilly, lower standard but then you have the 1st amendment to deal with and the fact that "accidental disclosure" of a trade secret is a defense.
I'm not saying I'd laugh it off if I was gizmodo but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either.
Now, Apple's press conferences are their press conferences so if they wanted to boot gizmodo from all future ones they could and there's noting gizmodo could do about it.
I'm not sympathetic to the work of these malcontents/paparazzi either, but today's blood lust is over the top given yesterday's device lust. That has been *my* point all along.
*If* this goes to trial, under cross examination, we'll see if Apple set all of these events into motion. Either way Mr. Powell is also not in an enviable position. He's either Apple's patsy or on Apple's blacklist.
NB...Mac Rumors didn't merely report on this scandal, like NYT or CNN would, they passed it on in whole.
Yeah, not really going to have the elements to qualify as defamation.
Of course truth is the ultimate defense to an accusation of defamation.
oh poor world!
1st) it's chinese that make fake things so before talk about japanese make sure about it and before reply to my post consider that It's 5 years I'm living in japan.
2nd) so much rumors of who lost, who got , sues, close the site, jail people ... oh cmon MORON!There are people out there raping, killing, do rob armery and so on and you are here blaming a guy that is trying to make a scoop?? YOU ARE ALL LOSERS!!I BET YOU too will do the same thing if you'll be in the same position!
3rd) iPhone (and I'M a BIG Apple lover) suck!As suck iPad!
Look guys, I'm italian 37 but living in Japan, IT background from high school, I saw from Z80 spectrum to first bigmobiles coming out.
I am (sigh) a Apple fan in the last years,I also always used PC even with the bad Vista.
I got myself this year in January a brand new iPhone 3GS 32GB and sorry but I don't understand why people is still buying apple iPhone or iPad: basically it doesn't do what a mobile phone must do.
Could be that in Japan we have the most technologically advanced mobiles in the world but to me (and I REPEAT Love Apple) a mobile with a no removable battery, no possibilities to change a desktop wallpaper, not even the possibilities to use a song as ringtone it's not a mobile phone.
And don't start to talk about jailbreak, why do you have to hack in a mobile phone?Shouldn't be more easy to consumer if they could already customize their iPhone without risking with jailbreak?
And iPad is bigger ... geez iPhone is already big and iPad is more bigger?And easy breakable?Cmon guys, we are in 2010 trying to have small portable devices and Apple does it really good (like MacBook Air)why they are screwing the mobile market with this monsters?Cmon and planning to add a keyboard for a iPad?Are you nuts?Then for that money better to have a Apple or PC notepad!I'm so disappointed, and I'm a professional IT guy.
iPhone 4 WHAT?ohh they added a camera facing the user?Wow (I'm sarcastic) ALL of japanese mobile have that and a lot of European mobile too.Cmon Apple go back to make only computer that better and Steve Jobs please retire and stop steal money to people sending smoke in their eyes ....
1st) it's chinese that make fake things so before talk about japanese make sure about it and before reply to my post consider that It's 5 years I'm living in japan.
2nd) so much rumors of who lost, who got , sues, close the site, jail people ... oh cmon MORON!There are people out there raping, killing, do rob armery and so on and you are here blaming a guy that is trying to make a scoop?? YOU ARE ALL LOSERS!!I BET YOU too will do the same thing if you'll be in the same position!
3rd) iPhone (and I'M a BIG Apple lover) suck!As suck iPad!
Look guys, I'm italian 37 but living in Japan, IT background from high school, I saw from Z80 spectrum to first bigmobiles coming out.
I am (sigh) a Apple fan in the last years,I also always used PC even with the bad Vista.
I got myself this year in January a brand new iPhone 3GS 32GB and sorry but I don't understand why people is still buying apple iPhone or iPad: basically it doesn't do what a mobile phone must do.
Could be that in Japan we have the most technologically advanced mobiles in the world but to me (and I REPEAT Love Apple) a mobile with a no removable battery, no possibilities to change a desktop wallpaper, not even the possibilities to use a song as ringtone it's not a mobile phone.
And don't start to talk about jailbreak, why do you have to hack in a mobile phone?Shouldn't be more easy to consumer if they could already customize their iPhone without risking with jailbreak?
And iPad is bigger ... geez iPhone is already big and iPad is more bigger?And easy breakable?Cmon guys, we are in 2010 trying to have small portable devices and Apple does it really good (like MacBook Air)why they are screwing the mobile market with this monsters?Cmon and planning to add a keyboard for a iPad?Are you nuts?Then for that money better to have a Apple or PC notepad!I'm so disappointed, and I'm a professional IT guy.
iPhone 4 WHAT?ohh they added a camera facing the user?Wow (I'm sarcastic) ALL of japanese mobile have that and a lot of European mobile too.Cmon Apple go back to make only computer that better and Steve Jobs please retire and stop steal money to people sending smoke in their eyes ....
OK. Just to be clear, "finders keepers" and "possession is 9/10 of the law" are NOT real legal concepts. I know. Shocking, right.
The "finder" had no right to keep or sale the phone. Period. Doing so was theft. Gizmodo had no right to buy and doing so was was purchasing stolen property.
The "finder" had no right to keep or sale the phone. Period. Doing so was theft. Gizmodo had no right to buy and doing so was was purchasing stolen property.
Gizmodo knew the phone was acquired (and originally owned by an Apple engineer/employee) and not returned to its owner under the pretense that it may be a prototype. Ignorance is hard to claim when they admittedly paid 5k for any type of phone, especially considering they report on the top secret activity of Apple on a regular basis... Motive = The biggest advanced scoop in recent tech history.
It wasn't accidental disclosure of trade secrets.
They didn't post the pictures one at a time as they unscrewed the case and stop once they finally discovered an Apple logo... They posted the pictures after it was disassembled announced it was "the next iphone" and then said "whoops" well after the pictures made their round.
If I was Gizmodo, or anyone involved in the acquisition of that phone. I'd be losing a lot of sleep, even with pockets full of cash LOL...
yet...
it can get complicated in a second, in Gizmodo's case the "accidental disclosure" could not apply since they paid 5K for the item, when you pay that much for anything the appearance of "accidental" is far-fetched, but like it is said:"beyond a reasonable doubt" is the name of the game. The employee (according to Giz) showed real concern, after all its his job on the line, he knows where he works! he knows what it means, he knows what it is to be called to "the office" and have to explain his error, it sends anyone back to those high school moments where you where probably going to be suspended, expelled etc.
In any case its an experience! It could of been serious if the employee would of sold the item to Gizmodo then Apple would have a clear case, but it was obtained from a third party. I think there is more to this than the morality of Gizmodo, it could be the lack there-of or the voyeuristic aspect of all this thats troublesome, the revelation of the identity and the construction of the written material describing the whole event seems to bypass the consequences that may be inflicted yet upon the employee, its sort of like the story of Agamemnon who wanted to sacrifice his own daughter Iphiginea to get the wind necessary to sail to Troy. so my question here is: would any of you consider participating in an event that may jeopardize someone's job or well-being for the sake a story? is it fun to be mocked by strangers because they have seen your pic on a popular site? how about if I where to expose any of you to possible ignominy for profit or fun?...think amongst yourselves! Im preclempt!
it can get complicated in a second, in Gizmodo's case the "accidental disclosure" could not apply since they paid 5K for the item, when you pay that much for anything the appearance of "accidental" is far-fetched, but like it is said:"beyond a reasonable doubt" is the name of the game. The employee (according to Giz) showed real concern, after all its his job on the line, he knows where he works! he knows what it means, he knows what it is to be called to "the office" and have to explain his error, it sends anyone back to those high school moments where you where probably going to be suspended, expelled etc.
In any case its an experience! It could of been serious if the employee would of sold the item to Gizmodo then Apple would have a clear case, but it was obtained from a third party. I think there is more to this than the morality of Gizmodo, it could be the lack there-of or the voyeuristic aspect of all this thats troublesome, the revelation of the identity and the construction of the written material describing the whole event seems to bypass the consequences that may be inflicted yet upon the employee, its sort of like the story of Agamemnon who wanted to sacrifice his own daughter Iphiginea to get the wind necessary to sail to Troy. so my question here is: would any of you consider participating in an event that may jeopardize someone's job or well-being for the sake a story? is it fun to be mocked by strangers because they have seen your pic on a popular site? how about if I where to expose any of you to possible ignominy for profit or fun?...think amongst yourselves! Im preclempt!
The story is good, as is the debate...
...but what's the liability to return a device to its owner in California? Is there a law that says not making a good faith effort is theft?
I mean, sure, the article talks about how if you are going to buy a Rolex and the seller offers it for $200, the buyer is supposed to take reasonable steps to ensure its not stolen.
Gizmodo paid $5000 for it (which makes it highly likely they had a reasonable belief the device was from Apple and not for retail sale, and made the exact acquisition circumstances unclear...)
Gizmodo came up with a pretty solid cover story that explained it was left by the employee, and the exact circumstances of how the individual attempted to notify Apple, but...alas! They won't take it back
(Note that this smells to high heaven- but Gizmodo's post on how they asked the seller and how the seller replied seems pretty airtight. And read it before you judge. It was vague enough to cover their asses).
The bigger issue... We talk about Gizmodo's responsibility to make sure the device was not stolen.
Under California Law, is a device considered stolen if one does not make a reasonable effort to return it? What's the maximum extent of the liability of the seller to attempt to return the device? The guy alleges he asked around the bar if anyone knew they guy, and alleges he turned it on and saw his Facebook profile (he professed his love for german beer on his wall while at the bar). Relieved, he claims to have turned it off and planned to get in touch with the kid in the morning, only to find that Apple had bricked it in the morning (at which point he removed it from the case). Up to this point, nothing seems wrong to me (at a bare minimum, I would have tried to contact somebody a little higher up than the CSRs at Apple, and would have gone back to the bar.) At this point...regardless of morality...is it illegal? Is it considered stolen?
Assuming it's legally stolen seems like a HUGE leap to me. Unless a lawyer has already considered my thoughts- I'd like to read a legal opinion on it.
EDIT: And while I enjoyed Jeff Bercovici's piece, he is a writer, not a lawyer. The lawyer I saw in the article only was quoted on responsibility to verify it wasn't stolen reasonably if something seemed suspect- and the argument that you were going to sell/buy something and return it later. Bercovici states that Gizmodo didn't fufill their responsibility- but his LinkedIn shows no jobs or other qualifications that would make him legally qualified to make the judgment that it wasn't a reasonable effort, or that the phone was considered legally stolen at that point.
...but what's the liability to return a device to its owner in California? Is there a law that says not making a good faith effort is theft?
I mean, sure, the article talks about how if you are going to buy a Rolex and the seller offers it for $200, the buyer is supposed to take reasonable steps to ensure its not stolen.
Gizmodo paid $5000 for it (which makes it highly likely they had a reasonable belief the device was from Apple and not for retail sale, and made the exact acquisition circumstances unclear...)
Gizmodo came up with a pretty solid cover story that explained it was left by the employee, and the exact circumstances of how the individual attempted to notify Apple, but...alas! They won't take it back
(Note that this smells to high heaven- but Gizmodo's post on how they asked the seller and how the seller replied seems pretty airtight. And read it before you judge. It was vague enough to cover their asses).
The bigger issue... We talk about Gizmodo's responsibility to make sure the device was not stolen.
Under California Law, is a device considered stolen if one does not make a reasonable effort to return it? What's the maximum extent of the liability of the seller to attempt to return the device? The guy alleges he asked around the bar if anyone knew they guy, and alleges he turned it on and saw his Facebook profile (he professed his love for german beer on his wall while at the bar). Relieved, he claims to have turned it off and planned to get in touch with the kid in the morning, only to find that Apple had bricked it in the morning (at which point he removed it from the case). Up to this point, nothing seems wrong to me (at a bare minimum, I would have tried to contact somebody a little higher up than the CSRs at Apple, and would have gone back to the bar.) At this point...regardless of morality...is it illegal? Is it considered stolen?
Assuming it's legally stolen seems like a HUGE leap to me. Unless a lawyer has already considered my thoughts- I'd like to read a legal opinion on it.
EDIT: And while I enjoyed Jeff Bercovici's piece, he is a writer, not a lawyer. The lawyer I saw in the article only was quoted on responsibility to verify it wasn't stolen reasonably if something seemed suspect- and the argument that you were going to sell/buy something and return it later. Bercovici states that Gizmodo didn't fufill their responsibility- but his LinkedIn shows no jobs or other qualifications that would make him legally qualified to make the judgment that it wasn't a reasonable effort, or that the phone was considered legally stolen at that point.
Wasn't it the law professor posing the question how was this considered theft by legal definition?
The lawyer quotes are:Wasn't it the law professor posing the question how was this considered theft by legal definition?
DailyFinance said:
and
DailyFinance said:
So the two quotes Bercovici picks relies on two major assumptions:
- The device was legally considered stolen (is it "finders keepers" in CA?). Is there a minimum burden to attempt to return something? Did the actions (asking people around the bar, planning on calling him in the morning but the unit was remotely bricked)
- That Gizmodo's efforts didn't count as a reasonable effort to verify it wasn't stolen. Bercovici boldly proclaims Gizmodo didn't do their responsibility- but Bercovici isn't the lawyer.
The story is good, as is the debate...
...but what's the liability to return a device to its owner in California? Is there a law that says not making a good faith effort is theft?
I mean, sure, the article talks about how if you are going to buy a Rolex and the seller offers it for $200, the buyer is supposed to take reasonable steps to ensure its not stolen.
Gizmodo paid $5000 for it (which makes it highly likely they had a reasonable belief the device was from Apple and not for retail sale, and made the exact acquisition circumstances unclear...)
Gizmodo came up with a pretty solid cover story that explained it was left by the employee, and the exact circumstances of how the individual attempted to notify Apple, but...alas! They won't take it back
(Note that this smells to high heaven- but Gizmodo's post on how they asked the seller and how the seller replied seems pretty airtight. And read it before you judge. It was vague enough to cover their asses).
The bigger issue... We talk about Gizmodo's responsibility to make sure the device was not stolen.
Under California Law, is a device considered stolen if one does not make a reasonable effort to return it? What's the maximum extent of the liability of the seller to attempt to return the device? The guy alleges he asked around the bar if anyone knew they guy, and alleges he turned it on and saw his Facebook profile (he professed his love for german beer on his wall while at the bar). Relieved, he claims to have turned it off and planned to get in touch with the kid in the morning, only to find that Apple had bricked it in the morning (at which point he removed it from the case). Up to this point, nothing seems wrong to me (at a bare minimum, I would have tried to contact somebody a little higher up than the CSRs at Apple, and would have gone back to the bar.) At this point...regardless of morality...is it illegal? Is it considered stolen?
Assuming it's legally stolen seems like a HUGE leap to me. Unless a lawyer has already considered my thoughts- I'd like to read a legal opinion on it.
I can't give you a legal response, but lets look at this as a simple common sense problem.
A Rolex watch is a bad example first of all because it's either fake or stolen at that price... We're talking about a pre-released product that has the potential of making a company 100's of millions, thus taking market share from it's competitors and other carriers.
Second of all, the person who found it knew the name and address where Gray worked! If he couldn't be bothered to hand it to a manager at the bar, FedEx it to Apple with Gray's name, or send him a simple email via facebook, then it doesn't take a genius to realize his intentions by contacting no fewer than 2 online gossip sites to extort money for what was obviously not his.
Calling Apple Care is ridiculous at best and a piss poor attempt to cover his ass.
Yes Vague is exactly how Gizmodo responds to everything.. Great details on who owned the phone, yet nothing on the person who has $5000 in their pocket.
Here's a question to ask yourself... If the phone was bricked on the morning after and useless to the finder, why not just toss it in the garbage?
So what legally qualifies as a good faith effort? Does calling Apple by phone have any impact.
Legally liable.
He contacted the company directly by phone and was allegedly unable to get the "mid level phone reps" to get him in touch with anyone who'd take the phone back. Would that be considered legal abandonment?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I am entirely unfamiliar with the exact specifics of California's Penal code and what the maximum extent of his legal responsibility is.
I think it's only a matter of time before the name comes up.
Could you two guys PM me... I have an offer you might be interested in...
Lots of opportunity, no risk.
Neither of our opinions are legally valid.
I agree with you on a common sense level that what the seller and what Gizmodo did was wrong.
However..."common sense" is not how court works. The law is. Something can be unethical and legal.
This is unethical... but it may not be illegal in a court of law. I don't know.
This makes me more inclined to think that it wasn't legally a reasonable effort, but my opinion is worthless as someone without a law degree. If he actually got people on the phone- truly midlevel- and couldn't get any of them to take the device back, is that legally enough? What's the limits?
I wouldn't call low level customer service either, but a friend of a friend works higher up in Apple -I'd just get in touch with that person. Not "Steve Jobs' second hand man", but above the retail division and not in customer service.
Whether what Gizmodo did is unethical is all moot in a court of law if it wasn't illegal. It seems that it SHOULD be- but IS it.
The story he took off the case to inspect the phone (to see if it was damaged), and found it was a new iPhone.
It's dicey here, because at the point where it's bricked, you don't have to assume it's stolen- it could be lost. Now from what I'm reading earlier, legal abandonment is two years- so this becomes interesting because clearly the owner knows the device is missing.
Anyhow, without legal expertise, we can debate this...and I'd guess that Gizmodo is likely in legal trouble...but it's impossible to say they are and aren't without that expertise.
Ask a lawyer, but I can assure you that according to several sources, he did not do 2 things:
1) Call the bar where he took the phone (something he should not have done)
2) Report it to the police especially after it was bricked.
Second, we have no proof that Apple abandoned the phone - the legal letter to Gizmodo supports the notion. A CSR cannot reasonably be assumed to do this.
Of course nobody knows what this guy actually did - we just know what he did not do.
I don’t know that - whatever the penalties for theft are.
In my book - no. Being unable to contact a person cannot imply anything.
Here is a good summary
In general, abandonment has to have intent behind it. Being dismissed as a hoaxer is not abandonment especially in one month.
Also let me remind everyone...
There is a valid basis for this thread, something is amiss, if your existential needs are far too vast for this thread then it is best not to keep reading, but if you are going to post your ideas then share it with us in a manner civil and without calling anyone a moron or a loser, if something was written out of naivete then its is best to write, share and elaborate in order to expand someone else's perspective. We are not denying all the world's evils nor are we refuting that there are greater issues to contend with, but in this thread the topic is a specific one.
1)I for one would not jeopardize anyone for a story and frankly rationalizing someone else's opportunism as a typical mental or emotional reflex only shows disdain and it says more about you then anyone else.
2)Apple does not steal from people, people make the choices in the products they buy, regardless of the actual product quirks Apple just made 3 billion in this quarter with their sales model! they may be on to something! so your sarcasm is based on misguided observations.
3)I do not have an iPhone but that does not make it inane for everyone else to have one, your gadget necessities may just be different.
4)back to Gizmodo. there are some precedents here that they may be crossing, the next couple of days we'll see, I hope not to see them since I like their site and I know Steve Jobs likes them too, also remember that there are other governing agents at Apple that may still have a say in this matter.
There is a valid basis for this thread, something is amiss, if your existential needs are far too vast for this thread then it is best not to keep reading, but if you are going to post your ideas then share it with us in a manner civil and without calling anyone a moron or a loser, if something was written out of naivete then its is best to write, share and elaborate in order to expand someone else's perspective. We are not denying all the world's evils nor are we refuting that there are greater issues to contend with, but in this thread the topic is a specific one.
1)I for one would not jeopardize anyone for a story and frankly rationalizing someone else's opportunism as a typical mental or emotional reflex only shows disdain and it says more about you then anyone else.
2)Apple does not steal from people, people make the choices in the products they buy, regardless of the actual product quirks Apple just made 3 billion in this quarter with their sales model! they may be on to something! so your sarcasm is based on misguided observations.
3)I do not have an iPhone but that does not make it inane for everyone else to have one, your gadget necessities may just be different.
4)back to Gizmodo. there are some precedents here that they may be crossing, the next couple of days we'll see, I hope not to see them since I like their site and I know Steve Jobs likes them too, also remember that there are other governing agents at Apple that may still have a say in this matter.