Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ummm anyone who mentions the Apple Care call again should read this!!!!

Ummm anyone who mentions the Apple Care call again should read this!!!!

Why on earth would anyone call Apple care if they found an iphone!!! Especially when you know the full name and workplace of the person that owns said device? Go to the cops, leave it with the manager or contact them thru facebook or the phonebook (if that thing still exists). :mad:

Seriously I hope I never lose anything, near anyone that asks a question like that!

I don't want to call anyone out for being purposely naive but... seriously? :rolleyes:
 
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.

Again, this seems like common sense and easy steps...but is that the case legally?

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.

Apple had bricked it. That's actually not the worst legal defense- although Apple has a good case in coming back that they were worried the device was lost or stolen anyways. But it might not be an unreasonable judgment.

Of course nobody knows what this guy actually did - we just know what he did not do.
True.

I don’t know that - whatever the penalties for theft are.

Liable according to merriam webster = obligated according to law or equity

In my book - no. Being unable to contact a person cannot imply anything.

And I'd agree- in my book. Not the law. It seems like common sense that it'd be the law...but we don't know that it is.

In general, abandonment has to have intent behind it. Being dismissed as a hoaxer is not abandonment especially in one month.
Again, seems like really common sense- but does Gizmodo and the seller/finder have any legal ground? Laws - and their interpretations- vary regionally.
 
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.

If you are lawyer, I am going to agree with the other guy, you can't be a good one. The statutes support that what he did was steal it.

You are claiming that the guy who stole the phone not only had the right to it, but he could do anything he wanted with it.

The California law specifically does not support any of that. What planet are you on?

By the way, it is not a bad thing if you are not a lawyer. It is not like being a doctor or something where I might give you some general knowledge consideration. Being a lawyer means very little, especially if it has nothing to do with what you practice.

Your position on this is ludicrous. This means I can just go around bars and restaurants, movie theaters and anywhere I want picking stuff up that I see and taking it with me and as soon as I take it, it is mine. Heck I can even stand outside and sell it back to the person if I like and it would be legal.

Once again, the California law very precisely spells out what needed to be done in this case. None of those things were done by the person who STOLE the phone. He never had any rights to it, and did not have the title to sell it. You are flat out 100% wrong.


VVVV For thatrandomguy below me VVVVVVV

The problem is too much of this involves lawyers. People give lawyers too much credit. A lot of lawyers suck. It is nice to think when you say Gizmodo ran it past their laywers it means it was properly vetted. Given my impression of the business and the people who work there their lawyer is probably a dbag frat buddy of the rest of them and not competent to do anything or make any critical judgement with any accuracy.
 
I don't want to call anyone a moron but... seriously? :rolleyes:

To be fair, my Facebook is completely hidden from public search. You can find it if you know my email.

Still, I mean, Steve Jobs' email is public knowledge- and I'm sure a few others. Not that hard to hit the upper levels.

Gawker didn't start yesterday. I'm sure they talked to their lawyers before buying the device.

EDIT: Then again, Gizmodo's pulled some REALLY stupid **** in the past. None outright illegal as far as I know, but a typical lack of judgment.
  • Posted shock porn to the front page of their sister blog on video gaming, Kotaku, under the name of another editor
  • Went to CES and disrupted presentations using a TV-B-Gone Remote.

It wouldn't surprise me that they did something illegal. Still wondering if any legal experts are around.
 
To be fair, my Facebook is completely hidden from public search. You can find it if you know my email.

Still, I mean, Steve Jobs' email is public knowledge- and I'm sure a few others. Not that hard to hit the upper levels.

Gawker didn't start yesterday. I'm sure they talked to their lawyers before buying the device.

EDIT: Then again, Gizmodo's pulled some REALLY stupid **** in the past.

Name, work address, place of hangout, identified it as a different sort of phone once stripped of it's disguise... sold to highest bidder.

Gawker/Gizmodo saw an opportunity and took it. Engadget saw it for it's true colors and passed.

I'm actually surprised at how big of a debate something as simple as honesty and morals has become.
 
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.

What? Call people? It calls people fine. It gets me on the internet fine (certainly easier than any previous phone I had. Admittedly none smart phones but at least one capable of browsing limited mobile sites).

Plays most games fine.

Gives me maps and directions to places fine. Gives me directions to places I find on the internet fine. Tells me where movies are playing near me at what times or what restaurants are near me fine.

Oh wait, it's already doing more than what a *phone* should do.

Could be that in Japan we have the most technologically advanced mobiles in the world but to me

That could be, I hear other countries are far more advanced in what their cellphones do (I know taking pictures with your phone was common place in Japan when in the US it was a very novel idea).

a mobile with a no removable battery

Battery lasts long enough doesn't need it and honestly it's a good trade for it being less bulky. Back when I had an Ipaq 4700 I made fun of the fact Apple didn't like removable batteries. But honestly, I haven't really come across it being that much of an issue, save on 5 hour flights (which I bought a plug in battery thingy for it). And honestly, on my iPaq, it was kind of a pain to make sure I was using both batteries in a way not to kill one cause I never used it just to have that spare every now and then. It's why I haven't bought a spare battery for my laptop for the very few times I'd use it. I would have to spend way too much effort to maintain that battery for the very few times I'd need it.

I have decided Apple is right to focus more on longer life batteries rather than replaceable batteries.

, no possibilities to change a desktop wallpaper,

Apparently being fixed in 4.0 and you can still customize the home screen even before 4.0. And really, Apple is right that a black background is much better with no clutter. though admittedly I'd like to customize the wallpaper (though part of me realizes the phone would be more usable with a simple, non intrusive color).

not even the possibilities to use a song as ringtone

That is simply untrue. You only say that cause you don't know how to add them. Honestly, my iphone has been easier to add customized ringtones (from any non-itunes song) than any of my previous phones (one which I had to download software and it only seemed to work on some of my songs and they ahd to be the right format before it would even work with them). I have quite the library of songs as ringtones.

Look it up sometime. It involves using itunes but yes, you can very easily add your own ringtones to it (for free if they aren't songs you bought off of itunes. With a fee if they are).

And iPad is bigger ... geez iPhone is already big and iPad is more bigger?

Iphone is that big? It fits better in my purse than my old Nokia.

As for iPad, I don't really see the use of it myeslf having a laptop and the iphone. For anything i'd actually take something as big as the iPad for I'd just take my laptop (might as well if I have to actually carry something other than my purse around) and for being portable everywhere I go, the iphone is a great compromise between very portable, and still pretty useful. Shoot, the GPS makes the iphone super useful (honestly, if you ask me, that's the one feature that really makes the phone very useful to me).

The ipad looks good and if it were cheaper I could see maybe buying the ipad for an ebook reader (the ebook function works very smoothly and looks nice... I played with it some and it's hard to quantify, but it is very impressive) even though my iphone suffices for that (the ipad would not add too much bulk on plane trips while being nicer to read off of). But since that's really the only use *I* would have for an ipad, not worth the price. Though my roommate says his dad would buy it in a heartbeat (his dad is a private pilot and apparently there is at least one program that would make the ipad super useful for a pilot. I, not being a pilot, can't really elaborate more than that).

And easy breakable?

Pffft. I've dropped my iphone a whole ton of times on hard floors. It's almost two years old now (my contract is almost up is how i know) and it's got an inch crack on the back that recently showed up on it. still works fine. My ipaq could not say that (it got dropped admittedly from pretty high up but it was in my purse so had some padding. It broke and had to be repaired).

I've heard of some one who was an idiot and thought that putting it in a ziploc bag would protect it while he went jetskiing with it. It got wet. The screen got messed up. The phone still worked regardless.

I don't think I'd call the things fragile. More durable than I'd expect a smartphone to be.
 
What is ethical is not always legal, and what is unethical is not always illegal.

True in most small matters when the plaintiff has very little money to back them.

But, I can be pretty sure with the corporate/product developing world watching... The 40 extremely high paid and well educated attorneys at Apple are doing their due diligence to review or re-write the chain of events, in order to keep this from ever happening again, it will likely be a bad deal for Gizmodo in the end.

But fun to watch :)
 
The 40 extremely high paid and well educated attorneys at Apple

The question is what Apple will do.

They've all BUT acknowledged that it's the iPhone. You can be 99% sure- but Apple's letter didn't state so, and it never stated that it was the upcoming iPhone. Could be a prototype in a different shell, could be the one that was coming after...)

If they file the lawsuit they essentially acknowledge that it was the iPhone 4G officially.

Now even if we all KNOW what it's going to look like...does Apple want to make it 100% official with a lawsuit? Or Steve confirming it on stage?
 
The question is what Apple will do.

They've all BUT acknowledged that it's the iPhone. You can be 99% sure- but Apple's letter didn't state so, and it never stated that it was the upcoming iPhone. Could be a prototype in a different shell, could be the one that was coming after...)

If they file the lawsuit they essentially acknowledge that it was the iPhone 4G officially.

Now even if we all KNOW what it's going to look like...does Apple want to make it 100% official with a lawsuit? Or Steve confirming it on stage?

Completely guessing here, but...

I'm betting they will wait until announcement before legal takes the spotlight. Plenty of time for Gawker to transfer funds to some Caiman account LOL. :D

I'm thinking there is a little more to the phone/carrier(s) than Gizmodo mentioned or knows. Any immediate legal proceedings would bring unwanted attention or details to the big moment (likely why Apple hasn't mentioned this situation publicly yet).

Once announced, I can only assume there will be a silent but deadly backlash. :p
 
John Gruber has a very detailed overview of the situation. Please keep any comments relating to this article on the content and not any personal hatred for Gruber. I'm really interested as to what the legal impact will be.

Link

Excerpt
Admittedly, it would be very hard to get someone on the phone at Apple who would know what a device such as this one is. Apple, like most large companies, deliberately makes it difficult for consumers to reach (non-retail) employees. There is no lost prototype hotline.

But they could have simply put the phone in a bubble wrap envelope and mailed it to 1 Infinite Loop. Apple’s mailing address is right on their web site. And they had the name of the engineer who lost the phone. It defies belief that calling Apple’s public phone numbers constitutes “reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him”, as required both by law and by common sense.

Take it back to the bar. Drop it in the mail. Send a message using Facebook to the engineer who lost it. Or, why not take it to an Apple Store? That’s a circuitous route, but this bit from Gizmodo’s report:

Walk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?

is how thieves think — that everyone else is as dishonest as they are. Taking it to an Apple Store, asking for a manager, and handing it over would have put the phone back in Apple’s hands.

Even if you take their account at face value, it is clear the individuals who sold this unit to Gizmodo made no serious attempt to return the phone.

Thus, even if the phone originally came into their hands by being lost, once they made no “reasonable and just” effort to return it and instead began trying to sell it, it became stolen.
 
The question is what Apple will do.

They've all BUT acknowledged that it's the iPhone. You can be 99% sure- but Apple's letter didn't state so, and it never stated that it was the upcoming iPhone. Could be a prototype in a different shell, could be the one that was coming after...)

If they file the lawsuit they essentially acknowledge that it was the iPhone 4G officially.

Now even if we all KNOW what it's going to look like...does Apple want to make it 100% official with a lawsuit? Or Steve confirming it on stage?

At some point in the future Apple HAVE to take legal action against Gizmodo. If they don't, it is basically a sign to anyone who wants to make a name for themselves that if they get their hands on one of Apple's secret future projects - by legal or illegal methods - and plaster it all over the internet they will be rewarded by massive amounts of publicity and exposure, and Apple won't do anything to stop them. It would set a terrible precedent. Apple would become nothing but a sieve for any future project, the target of anyone willing to do anything to expose details of the latest software/hardware. In my mind it is not a question of 'if' Apple sues but 'when'. Des anyone know the time lag between Psystar putting Mac clones on sale and the official cease and desist?
 
John Gruber has a very detailed overview of the situation.

Again, a lot of people- including myself, and I'm not the first person to defend Apple, by far- would agree that, at a minimum, the behavior of the phone finder/seller and Gizmodo are unethical.

I have yet to see a lawyer saying that it was definitely legally wrong.
 
Gizmodo's "ethics"

I don't understand:

1) Why did Gizmodo publish the identity of the Apple employee?

What was in it for them to do such a thing?

Doing so may have hurt the employee's chances at getting another job - in the event that he is let go - and should (does it?) have legal ramifications for Gizmodo.

2) Why even announce that you offered money for the prototype? You will only offer money if:

A) You know it's not a fake
B) It could be an unreleased product, which you know would be kept secret by the parent company

3) Why couldn't Gizmodo determine if the phone had a CDMA chip or not? That would have been just as big to know as knowing that there's a new phone coming out. The info would potentially sway many Verizon customers and keep them from going for the HTC Incredible.

Gizmodo and Gawker are a bunch of frat boys.
 
Again, a lot of people- including myself, and I'm not the first person to defend Apple, by far- would agree that, at a minimum, the behavior of the phone finder/seller and Gizmodo are unethical.

I have yet to see a lawyer saying that it was definitely legally wrong.

There doesn't have to be a pre-existing, specific, legal definition for it to be considered unethical and therefore have a judge side with Apple in this case.

You can argue something as unethical by virtue of precedents, i.e., a similar instance occurred in the past that was deemed unethical. You can win a case like that (I am pretty sure if I recall my business law class).
 
I don't understand:

1) Why did Gizmodo publish the identity of the Apple employee?

What was in it for them to do such a thing?

Doing so may have hurt the employee's chances at getting another job - in the event that he is let go - and should (does it?) have legal ramifications for Gizmodo.

I think the thought process was that Apple was going to fire him if his identity wasn't made public (at which point he's not just a nameless, faceless engineer, and firing him would cause attention.

2) Why even announce that you offered money for the prototype? You will only offer money if:

A) You know it's not a fake
B) It could be an unreleased product, which you know would be kept secret by the parent company

Either a total lack of judgment or the belief- based in either fact or fallacy- that they were legally safe and that it added credulity.

3) Why couldn't Gizmodo determine if the phone had a CDMA chip or not? That would have been just as big to know as knowing that there's a new phone coming out. The info would potentially sway many Verizon customers and keep them from going for the HTC Incredible.

Think they stated that they didn't want to eff it up before returning it to apple.

Gizmodo and Gawker are a bunch of frat boys.
Not news. When a Gizmodo editor posts shock site porn on another Gawker blog- under the name of a Gawker editor from that blog- you realize that they're not the best bloggers :D

Allegedly, Engadget WAS Steve's favorite gadget blog...
 
You can argue something as unethical by virtue of precedents, i.e., a similar instance occurred in the past that was deemed unethical. You can win a case like that (I am pretty sure if I recall my business law class).

Judicial discretion has limits.

If it's up to a judge to decide whether or not the guy who found the phone made a truly - legally- reasonable effort to return it, they'd say no - I would think.
 
"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."

I offer to sell you anything that resembles a cell phone for $5000—even a suspected Japanese or Chinese iPhone knockoff—you can bet that it's not my cell to sell. Gizmodo's defense makes no sense.

Exactly. The authenticity was "in question" and the question apparently was worth $5,000 to know the answer to.

If Apple is smart (of course they are, they are worth billions) it will wait until the iPhone is publicly revealed, maybe even make a light hearted joke about it by having Gray Powell walk on stage at the WWDC (it would immortalize him and show that Apple/Jobs has a sense of humor = amazing PR), then sue Gizmodo for something like libel for having revealed the identity of "one of their own employees," rather than suing for anything related to theft or unlawful possession or whatever. That way, it takes the focus off the iPhone "theft" and makes Apple look paternal for protecting an employee's reputation.
 
then sue Gizmodo for something like libel for having revealed the identity of "one of their own employees," rather than suing for anything related to theft or unlawful possession or whatever. That way, it takes the focus off the iPhone "theft" and makes Apple look paternal for protecting an employee's reputation.

I don't really see the legal grounds on that count. Does Gizmodo have a legal contract not to reveal the identities of Apple employees, such as those who left their iPhones on their Facebook pages at bars?

EDIT: Still not saying that what Gizmodo did is ethical, just that I'm doubtful it's illegal. As always, happy to be contradicted if you have something that shows otherwise.
 
Anyone know how much Apple makes off of Gawker through Quattro?

Are they still one of their biggest accounts?
 
Sorry, Gawker is fully responsible as the owner of Gizmodo and as such are the responsibility of their employees, especially after it appears that their CEO endorses what happened and has not come clean on the entire event. Gawkers lawyers approved of this. Nobody is talking about lifehacker or anybody else - this is purely on the hands of Gizmodo and the corporate entity of Gawker.
Agreed, but people wanting the entire network to burn because of this, who only know Gawker from Gizmodo - I think - are in the wrong. I'm not saying nobody at Gawker should be accountable, but that would mean a load of good writers losing their job in the fallout. Whoever OK'd this should get into trouble if this goes far.. And yes, if damages must be paid, which is totally understandable - Gawker should have to pay them.

I hope it doesn't get too messy.. Giz brought it on themselves though.
 
Could you two guys PM me... I have an offer you might be interested in...

Lots of opportunity, no risk.

I'd like to get in on this action. On your side of the deal, of course, not theirs. ;)

I'm actually surprised at how big of a debate something as simple as honesty and morals has become.

When it comes to "sticking it to Apple," apparently honesty, morals, and rational thinking go out the window. Even on MacRumors. (Especially on MacRumors?)

And this used to be a place for intelligent discussion...
 
Lost , stolen, misplaced or abandoned it just doesn't matter. There is a clear procedure to be able to claim property in CA that takes a least 90 days at best. There is no legal way for the phone to have been the seller's property. Even if he had not done anything illegal to that point, when he sold it his actions became theft (same as selling a dvd you rented) Giz had full knowledge of the origins of this phone and knew the seller did not have ownership of the device hence its purchase was illegal.
Apple need never have claimed this device for all of this to still be true. The seller is still required to follow proper legal procedure to claim ownership of this device. Until he does selling it is theft even if it is never claimed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.