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 hope they get sued, I have not been a fan of Gizmodo since they pulled their douchey CES prank in 2008 http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9849168-2.html
La cosa trae cola
La verdad es que el temita no deja de dar coletazos
En Mac Sparrow se han hecho eco de esta noticia. Quizá puedas utilizar Mac Sparrow para mejorar tu castellano xDD
La verdad es que el temita no deja de dar coletazos
En Mac Sparrow se han hecho eco de esta noticia. Quizá puedas utilizar Mac Sparrow para mejorar tu castellano xDD
Thanks. The best thing for me is:
Good that somebody keeps track of Giz' document editings!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gruber
…says that he "is a technology pundit" but the article seems to be authored by a legal expert.
The whole story is §%&≠¿ for me. A real loser story. First I thought that Giz' nice & illustrated collection of the new iPhone OS 4 features is great but then I discovered that it's a 1:1 copy of a MacRumors forums thread.
First. Most people here, if not everyone wants to know about new Apple products as soon as possible. I think that this is clear to the rest of the world and because of this people are willing to go all the way and even pay money for it, like Gizmodo did, so it is unfair, hypocritical to some extend, to read most comments here. I mean come on... what do you expect?
Also, the person who found the device may have transferred possession of the found product to Gizmodo, if they promised him to do everything to return it to the original owner. Like when you find something, but are unable to either return it to the legal owner or (local) police. In this case you can transfer possession, in good faith, without ever being caught for stealing, and can, say your mom, do the work for you.
Read this: 'This option arguably does not comply with the letter of California law, insofar as the bartender is not the owner and is not the police. But no one has or ever will be prosecuted for handing a lost item to the employees of the establishment where the item was found. Effectively you’re turning the bartender into the finder of the item.".
And yes, that's what Gruber has to say about it. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?
So if the finder transferred possession in good faith, and this has been put on paper, then [the finder] did not sell a "stolen" product, but got a finders fee simply because he had a highly newsworthy item in his possession.
Now a word to Apple employees: "Why on earth wasn't the [mandatory, by Steve Jobs] auto lock feature enabled on this prototype? I mean come one... when Apple doesn't want to share pre-production model info, because that's what this iPhone is [confirmed by tag] then at least demand the user to have the auto lock feature be enabled. This way the 'finder' needs to enter a password when he finds it. This way it can delete everything when say three or more wrong passwords are typed in. We all know and love this feature... don't we Apple?".
Also; When said Apple engineer was drunk, why was he able to write on his personal page about the German beer? I mean a drunk person, a really drunk person to lose a pre-production model iPhone, won't be able to write anything useful on that page. Sounds suspiciously like a controlled leak.
I am not defending the finder nor Gizmodo, but it isn't all clear to me what really happened, so we should relax and wait. Wait for Apple's move on it before we here, without really knowing what was going on, jail the guy who found it, and sack the person who lost it. One thing is for sure... Gizmodo did everything to get the news out early to all of us. I'm not sure if everything is okay from now on, with either one of the parties involved, but at least now we know; This thing is real!
Also, the person who found the device may have transferred possession of the found product to Gizmodo, if they promised him to do everything to return it to the original owner. Like when you find something, but are unable to either return it to the legal owner or (local) police. In this case you can transfer possession, in good faith, without ever being caught for stealing, and can, say your mom, do the work for you.
Read this: 'This option arguably does not comply with the letter of California law, insofar as the bartender is not the owner and is not the police. But no one has or ever will be prosecuted for handing a lost item to the employees of the establishment where the item was found. Effectively you’re turning the bartender into the finder of the item.".
And yes, that's what Gruber has to say about it. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?
So if the finder transferred possession in good faith, and this has been put on paper, then [the finder] did not sell a "stolen" product, but got a finders fee simply because he had a highly newsworthy item in his possession.
Now a word to Apple employees: "Why on earth wasn't the [mandatory, by Steve Jobs] auto lock feature enabled on this prototype? I mean come one... when Apple doesn't want to share pre-production model info, because that's what this iPhone is [confirmed by tag] then at least demand the user to have the auto lock feature be enabled. This way the 'finder' needs to enter a password when he finds it. This way it can delete everything when say three or more wrong passwords are typed in. We all know and love this feature... don't we Apple?".
Also; When said Apple engineer was drunk, why was he able to write on his personal page about the German beer? I mean a drunk person, a really drunk person to lose a pre-production model iPhone, won't be able to write anything useful on that page. Sounds suspiciously like a controlled leak.
I am not defending the finder nor Gizmodo, but it isn't all clear to me what really happened, so we should relax and wait. Wait for Apple's move on it before we here, without really knowing what was going on, jail the guy who found it, and sack the person who lost it. One thing is for sure... Gizmodo did everything to get the news out early to all of us. I'm not sure if everything is okay from now on, with either one of the parties involved, but at least now we know; This thing is real!
Uhm… Sorry to contradict: No. Not this way. Not for me. It's disillusioning.
Somebody said in response to my previous posting:
I have to confess that such a situation may be the case (by coincidence my personal situation fits perfectly), but those accursed data plans shouldn't drive us into some inelegant hectic in my honest opinion. I just don't want to become a slave of such greedy news hunters.
I wouldn't pay one Eurocent for such a story. I paid enough with wasted time.
No. It's not hypocritical if you don't like "journalism" like this. It seems to be natural in our days, but it's illegal or sort of.
If there weren't Gi***do and En****et we probably would have a fine and nice surprise in some weeks with Steve presenting a shiny new device in a glorious event. So we have some blur and dark photos and videos with dirty fingers and not one breaking news. They didn't even manage to reveal main processor unit.
I'm still hoping that Apple is laughing @ what fuss there is about prototype #245 from 2008 or some rip-off they bought in Asia some weeks ago just for fun.
Some rather autistic responses on here, as expected.
The finder knew exactly what this device was, and the name of the owner. He could/should've handed it in to the bar where the owner would've had it back in their hands a short time later.
Instead it sounds like he left the bar in a hurry, more or less immediately, before the owner could call the bar, and then looked to sell to the highest bidder. He's arguably a thief, at the very least a fence, and arch bottom-feeders gawker/gizmodo are guilty of receiving stolen goods. **** them.
"Give ideas away for free by all means, but understand that someone, somewhere will be making money from them, even if you don't."
The finder knew exactly what this device was, and the name of the owner. He could/should've handed it in to the bar where the owner would've had it back in their hands a short time later.
Instead it sounds like he left the bar in a hurry, more or less immediately, before the owner could call the bar, and then looked to sell to the highest bidder. He's arguably a thief, at the very least a fence, and arch bottom-feeders gawker/gizmodo are guilty of receiving stolen goods. **** them.
"Give ideas away for free by all means, but understand that someone, somewhere will be making money from them, even if you don't."
Gizmodo paid $5000 for stolen property and they knew it. What a Scum outfit!
The guy who found the phone at the bar should have turned it over to the bar management. That would have been the decent thing to do.
The guy who lost the phone called the bar numerous times to see if someone was decent enough to turn it in.
The guy who found the phone at the bar should have turned it over to the bar management. That would have been the decent thing to do.
The guy who lost the phone called the bar numerous times to see if someone was decent enough to turn it in.
The point I think everyone is missing, is that at this point, according to what I am reading in CA law, the phone IS NOT STOLEN.
I see only that the finder make a Reasonable attempt to return it to the rightful owner - which is exactly what happened. I see nothing in the law about HOW those steps are to be completed, or in what time frame. I also see nothing in that law about what can or cannot be done with the item while in ones possession. As a matter of fact, photographing and publishing the pictures would be a REASONABLE course of action in returning found merchandise.
IF I were in a similair situation I would have taken the item, and posted pics / etc on craigslist as well as several other reasonable places. Turning the item in to the bar owner / worker / etc in no way guarantees that the item will get any further than their pocket, and by all means it truly is "Finders / Keepers" if the owner cannot be found / contacted.
If reasonable efforts don't turn up the owner, I would assume the found property to be my own, again in accordance with the CA law that was posted.
As I see it, the found merchandise was returned to its rightful owner. What happened in between is in no way covered by the law posted, and photographing as well as distributing those photos could plainly be described as an attempt to FIND the PROPER owner, which in this case it appeared to do in spades
why not just call Apple if you are so interested in just getting it back to its owner then?
Two things.
1) Rather then call first line customer support, why couldn't the finder email Steve Jobs himself? That's what I would have done. Clearly not much effort was put into returning the phone to it's rightful owner. How much effort was put into selling it to Gizmodo?
2) Failing the finder returning it properly, there is no reason why Gizmodo could not contact Steve Jobs directly and return the phone as well. Instead they may have violated trade secret laws and not be invited to future press events. I know if I were CEO I wouldn't look too kindly on Gizmodo now.
1) Rather then call first line customer support, why couldn't the finder email Steve Jobs himself? That's what I would have done. Clearly not much effort was put into returning the phone to it's rightful owner. How much effort was put into selling it to Gizmodo?
2) Failing the finder returning it properly, there is no reason why Gizmodo could not contact Steve Jobs directly and return the phone as well. Instead they may have violated trade secret laws and not be invited to future press events. I know if I were CEO I wouldn't look too kindly on Gizmodo now.
The problem for me with Giz is;
- they know Apple keep stuff quiet till they're ready to tell the world.
- they say they didn't know it was an apple product to start with.
- when they opened it they knew.
- at this point they should have been on the phone to Apple.
- no pics should have been published.
- no names handed out.
After they knew they had something that belonged to Apple they went to great lengths to milk it for all the story they could get. When they knew it was an Apple product they should have stopped there.
It's one thing to get pics of products in the wild. It's another to buy them from people that they later learn wouldn't have owned them and show the world.
It just shows real poor form.
- they know Apple keep stuff quiet till they're ready to tell the world.
- they say they didn't know it was an apple product to start with.
- when they opened it they knew.
- at this point they should have been on the phone to Apple.
- no pics should have been published.
- no names handed out.
After they knew they had something that belonged to Apple they went to great lengths to milk it for all the story they could get. When they knew it was an Apple product they should have stopped there.
It's one thing to get pics of products in the wild. It's another to buy them from people that they later learn wouldn't have owned them and show the world.
It just shows real poor form.
exactly, i still don't get this. this employee has the "next big thing" for testing purpose, he would know that everyone is looking for this. how can he possibly left it unattended at a bar...
now on giz' part:
damn right!
So now the story starts to be funny.
<Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode ON>
Dude. I know you are the one who wrote the fake "gimme back" letter. You always type two blank space characters after each period and punctuation mark except commas. Nobody else does this (not even a personal secretary of a high ranked officer ). Please compare (keep in mind Mac Rumors' posting and auto-quotation engine obviously deletes redundant blank spaces, go directly to Master Chief's posting and hit "Quote" button—you'll see it in the editor):
</Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode OFF>
Sure or not.—Thanks for the ad. What's definitely not sure: Did they give the ominously device back finally as legally advertised and edited several times in their weblog? So that we can close this case and stop wasting time.
Okay. Now I really believe.
+1
<Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode ON>
Dude. I know you are the one who wrote the fake "gimme back" letter. You always type two blank space characters after each period and punctuation mark except commas. Nobody else does this (not even a personal secretary of a high ranked officer
). Please compare (keep in mind Mac Rumors' posting and auto-quotation engine obviously deletes redundant blank spaces, go directly to Master Chief's posting and hit "Quote" button—you'll see it in the editor):
</Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode OFF>
Sure or not.—Thanks for the ad. What's definitely not sure: Did they give the ominously device back finally as legally advertised and edited several times in their weblog? So that we can close this case and stop wasting time.
Okay. Now I really believe.
+1
I think Apple "lost" this phone intentionally.
Remember App devs who had an iPad just a few weeks before release had to use it in rooms with black windows and they had to keep it physically tied even tough pretty much everything about the device was known to the public.
Now the same paranoid company with 100 security doors lets someone walk into a bar with a super secret prototype? Even if someone really managed to get outside the campus with the device without permission he would have ben extremely careful. And why would anyone take such a risk for a device that does not even boot up?
Hard to believe...
Christian
Remember App devs who had an iPad just a few weeks before release had to use it in rooms with black windows and they had to keep it physically tied even tough pretty much everything about the device was known to the public.
Now the same paranoid company with 100 security doors lets someone walk into a bar with a super secret prototype? Even if someone really managed to get outside the campus with the device without permission he would have ben extremely careful. And why would anyone take such a risk for a device that does not even boot up?
Hard to believe...
Christian
Since the phone was removed from the bar by the finder, I doubt that any judge is going to consider the finders actions reasonable if he did not contact the bar. What happened is that he got the equivalency of an answering machine. That does not constitute any abandonment. He dis not receive explain notification of abandonment. A CSR cannot. If the device is not abandoned and you do not wait 30 days - you cannot sell the device - that's theft.
Not to mention that he had a direct way to contact the owner - Gizmodo even admits that the finder had access to the guy's facebook indicating that he knew the man's name. He avoided several easy direct paths and took an approach that was almost guaranteed to fail and get no response.
Not really. Bricking a device doesn't constitute abandonment since that only deals with data - the physical device is still out in the wild and has not been abandoned.
If we are talking penalties, Giz could get a year of jail and a big fine. I am not sure what else you want.
The only law that is relevant is the California statutes since that is where the event has occurred. John Gruber clearly lays that out.
The secrecy of the iPad is not comparable to the iPhone. The biggest difference is that the iPad at the time was not even known. The iPhone is part of an allready existing product line.
Sorry if it's repeated somewhere in the previous 23 pages, but one of the worst things that could happen is that news of the "prototype" sends sales and new activations of iPhones, along with third-party accessories plummeting or at least having an "adverse material effect," thereby having Apple and/or AT&T suing Gawker Media (parent company of Gizmodo) for damages.
I, for one, was smart enough to dump my 3GS right before this "incident" and I'm coasting on an old 2G and awaiting an iPad+3G. But I know for sure that I won't be buying anything until the "iPhone Pro" (or whatever it's named) is released, including some of the cool, third-party accessories and attachments that have been recently released - there's no certainty if they will fit or coincide nicely with the "alleged" new form factor.
Unfortunately, the story is still too fresh to know if this could happen.
I, for one, was smart enough to dump my 3GS right before this "incident" and I'm coasting on an old 2G and awaiting an iPad+3G. But I know for sure that I won't be buying anything until the "iPhone Pro" (or whatever it's named) is released, including some of the cool, third-party accessories and attachments that have been recently released - there's no certainty if they will fit or coincide nicely with the "alleged" new form factor.
Unfortunately, the story is still too fresh to know if this could happen.
Yeah right.
Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 for a phone that wasn't an Apple prototype. They knew before they purchased it. They even said that Jason Chen meet with the seller to confirm its authenticity before purchasing it.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me. If there isn't a lawsuit in the works, then you know it was all a hoax.
By the way, if I ever found anything in a bar (money, cell phone, etc.) I would give it to the bar tender and explain that someone must have left it behind. If the bar tender pocketed it, it would be on his or her conscience then. In fact, I found an envelope full of money in a parking lot once (over $1,000) and went into a local store to see if I could find the owner. Luckily he was just checking out and noticed his money was missing. He thanked me profusely for returning it, because the money in the envelope was for his rent and utilities.
Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 for a phone that wasn't an Apple prototype. They knew before they purchased it. They even said that Jason Chen meet with the seller to confirm its authenticity before purchasing it.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me. If there isn't a lawsuit in the works, then you know it was all a hoax.
By the way, if I ever found anything in a bar (money, cell phone, etc.) I would give it to the bar tender and explain that someone must have left it behind. If the bar tender pocketed it, it would be on his or her conscience then. In fact, I found an envelope full of money in a parking lot once (over $1,000) and went into a local store to see if I could find the owner. Luckily he was just checking out and noticed his money was missing. He thanked me profusely for returning it, because the money in the envelope was for his rent and utilities.
Absolutely. I was at a coffee YESTERDAY. I walked into the bathroom and there on the floor was a phone. NATCH I thought of this very situation. I picked it up (made sure it wasn't a 4G iPhone prototype -- not a joke, this close to the story and you have to wonder) and before I did my bidness, turned around and headed out to the Coffee Clerk on duty. It was HER phone. It was a crappy little flip-gimme-phone but it meant something to her. She thanked me and went on about her day, knowing that her communications device was safe and sound.
Thinking it was an iPhone 3GS would normally tell a person "I bet the owner is really going to panic when they discover this is missing. Knowing what it was, one of a few prototypes in the world, then you know the owner is going to freaking out of their minds. They should've immediately gone into RECENTS and started calling the last calls that the owner made or received. They should have done a search for "ICE" (In Case of Emergency) and called that number. Should've made contact through Facebook. Could've looked for alternate numbers for the owner. Sent an Email. But it's obvious. They didn't WANT the owner to get the phone back. They wanted to keep it and sell it and that's exactly what they did.
I am simply not buying the fact that the phone was sat on a barstool. Hell-to-the-No. I believe the thief saw the Apple employee doing a video chat or something that they knew the most current iPhone 3GS could not do and seized an opportunity to relieve this person of the phone.
How do we know that the Apple employee actually went on FACEBOOK and posted the thing about Beer? How do we know that it wasn't the thief posting it from the phone itself, trying to make it look plausible that the phone was lost to due his drinking behaviour? As a former sponsor for a drug addict going to Recovery sessions, if I know anything about Drugs Users and Thieves it's that they are Amazing Liars and can dream up crap immediately to cover their tracks or to throw someone off their tracks or to deflect from them to someone else. We would go to "Group" (group therapy) and the lies that would come out was amazing,... I learned that most drug users are thieves and they can sure spin a yarn.
I bet the thief saw the Facebook app and knowing they weren't going to return it, Opened it and punched in the message, making the Apple guy look drunk or that he had too much booze.
Lastly, the owner and bartenders remember the Apple employee being frantic about if it showed up but no one remembers someone asking around? BS! The thief did not ask around first. He left -- IMMEDIATELY. I just hope that the thief's name comes out in all of this. A lawsuit is truly needed to send a message that you can't steal Apple's property and leak it, destroying millions of dollars in trade secrets. This gives the competition 2 months of a leg up in coming up with their phone with front facing camera, giant battery and super high-rez screen. That is just not right.
Apple is 10 minutes away. Drive by and drop off at the front desk.
And why call customer service? Call the main number. He knew the name of the owner. Ask to be transfered to him.
Returning the phone takes much less work than finding a buyer, but that 5000 bux is certainly more rewarding, right?