As someone who knows how Apple works internally, this wouldn't happen. Apple is a reasonable company. They may be coming up with new procedures for their field prototypes though.
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
As someone who knows how Apple works internally, this wouldn't happen. Apple is a reasonable company. They may be coming up with new procedures for their field prototypes though.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20078671
If I remember, they (re)packaged the iPods with a different iTunes, such that they could easily track the devices when they synced. They then tracked down the people who took the "lost" iPods and asked them why they were bad people.
It was *amazing* that almost all the people just took the iPod w/o even looking around, much less asking anyone, contacting mall security, etc.
The name and address of the person that pawned it is handed over to the police for prosecution.
It is interesting that no one is mentioning that the person who "found" the phone was able to look up the facebook information (which he passed along to Gizmodo if you recall). I think he had everything he needed if he ever actually intended to give the device back. The phone was stolen, and despite the claim, I have little faith that the person who ended up with it ever had any intention of giving it back. Gizmodo knew what they were doing.
Option 2 is that this is a deliberate leak, but I still have a hard time believing that.
Option 2 is that this is a deliberate leak, but I still have a hard time believing that.
Gizmodo paid $5000 for a prototype iPhone, which they positively knew didn't belong to the person they bought it from.
How can that not be trading of stolen goods?
Haha!
I know, I just didn't want to be so forward!
They kinda sealed their fate when they posted their testimony of the events in question on the internet! If Apple wanted to sue, what would the damages be? Has Apple been damaged financially? I doubt it. How has their stock done in the last few days?? Did they get their phone back? Yup.
So they could press criminal charges for buying stolen goods. My guess is it's Gizmodo's first offense and they'd get a slap on the wrist.
If Apple wants to do anything, it would be to punish them in some other way. Not let them to events, that sort of thing.
The guy asked around the bar. Yeah, like "Whisper" in "You Only Live Twice" - in a 10 decibel voice. 
It seems like a lot of people are more interested in personal gain than meeting basic societal expectations anymore - there's always been folks like that, but it's only been recently that some people actually defend it (maybe because they hope to find themselves in a similar situation someday?).
This seems pretty sleazy all around. I feel sorry for the engineer that lost the phone though - sucks to be him right now, no matter how this plays out. If he wants to keep his job, he'll probably be asked to be part of the WWDC presentations... while wearing a dress.
It seems like a lot of people are more interested in personal gain than meeting basic societal expectations anymore - there's always been folks like that, but it's only been recently that some people actually defend it (maybe because they hope to find themselves in a similar situation someday?).This seems pretty sleazy all around. I feel sorry for the engineer that lost the phone though - sucks to be him right now, no matter how this plays out. If he wants to keep his job, he'll probably be asked to be part of the WWDC presentations... while wearing a dress.
From Wikipedia:
In the United States, larceny is a common law crime involving theft. Under the common law, larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to deprive him or her of its possession permanently. In almost all states, it has become a statutory crime through codification.
And since Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it and disassembled it, it's grand larceny.
In the United States, larceny is a common law crime involving theft. Under the common law, larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to deprive him or her of its possession permanently. In almost all states, it has become a statutory crime through codification.
And since Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it and disassembled it, it's grand larceny.
Right, and the fact that they took the thing apart and milked it for all the publicity it was worth makes it even worse! Not only did they buy a stolen good and knew it, but they then used said stolen good to expose trade secrets. That is reckless if you ask me.
Gizmodo, of all organizations, understands things like this so they, of all people, knew what they were doing was wrong. The way they pimped this story all over the place made me sick- it is no longer a tech blog or journalism, it is tabloid-level crap.
Well according to a strict reading of CA code, in fact "lost" then "found" and kept from rightful owner is "theft" so "lost" may in fact equal "stolen" under these circumstances.
Man, I hope these idiots at Gizmodo (and the guy who found the phone) get their just desserts. Just as I said as soon as I saw the tear-down video: only an idiot would put his face next to the destruction of someone's (very valuable) property on a national stage without being 100% positive the device is abandoned...
o!... so now everyone wishes this never happened a! "lets just wait till the day comes" lets just get a magic marker and erase this and make it all go away.
Its not what it looked like before wen everyone was going nuts over the pics and the video.
(speaking in general don't take it personal) just quoted you to make a point
Apple never reported that the item was stolen. I wouldn't consider this a stolen case.
However, knowing that it's an unannounced Apple property after dismantling the item and then posted images and info about it, that's highly questionable. Trade secrets are revealed and potential earnings are dampened.
Me no big fan of Apple but they have all the muscles to seek for damages incurred by this scoop. And the finder too.
I don't think Apple will take any action until a few months after the 4th gen iPhone is out in the market. You don't want to dampen a product image with a lawsuit before even it's launched.
However, knowing that it's an unannounced Apple property after dismantling the item and then posted images and info about it, that's highly questionable. Trade secrets are revealed and potential earnings are dampened.
Me no big fan of Apple but they have all the muscles to seek for damages incurred by this scoop. And the finder too.
I don't think Apple will take any action until a few months after the 4th gen iPhone is out in the market. You don't want to dampen a product image with a lawsuit before even it's launched.
...
"The guy" is unconnected to Giz, so why should Giz (or even their parent company Gawker and all the other great sister-sites like Lifehacker) be faulted for "The guy" removing it from the bar?
Ok it's sketchy as to the legality of the PURCHASE; but "they" and "The guy" are separate parties.
So "they" should not be held accountable for "the guy's" actions.
I for one don't want to see Lifehacker disappear. The site is WAY more useful than any mere 'rumor' site.
The guy should also be sued. Gizmodo should have had some integrity... If I ran the site and someone contacted me trying to sell an Apple prototype, I would have contacted Apple. Why burn bridges?
I don't understand the logic behind people saying they hope the whole gawker network is taken down or that they hope Gizmodo is closed down.
Even if they were wrong, it doesn't mean they should be shut down for it. I use my official Ocho Cinco App to say "that don't make no damn sense."
Even if they were wrong, it doesn't mean they should be shut down for it. I use my official Ocho Cinco App to say "that don't make no damn sense."
This is exactly what they are going to do. They are not going to do anything until the phone is released. If this wasn't deliberate they are going to make Gizmodo suffer. Gawker-destroying lawsuit at worst...Gizmodo banned from Apple events at best. Again...if nothing happens I think it is safe to say that this was all planned out by Apple.
And just to reiterate...the phone was clearly stolen. The guy gave Gizmodo his name and facebook information...he could have contacted the engineer if he had really wanted to, instead he gave Gizmodo not only the device, but the guys information as well.
Neither the thief or Gizmodo really have a solid foundation to stand on.
Get lost with this. The man made an effort both at the time and the next day in contacting Apple.
There needs to be an IQ test to sign up for this place.
Shame on Gizmodo / The Rest of Us?
Okay, so if somebody gives you too much change, you let them know and give it back. If somebody drops some money you pick it up and give it to them. If you find something that is lost, you turn it in for lost-and-found.
Sure, you can drop a quarter in a newspaper vending machine and take 5 newspapers, but isn't your integrity worth more than a quarter? Is it worth more than a prototype iPhone?
Certainly, what this guy did in the bar was obviously wrong. You do not walk out of a place with something that is not yours, you turn it in. Whether its a wallet, a twenty-dollar-bill, a credit card, or a prototype iPhone.
What Gizmodo did is absolutely ridiculous. To put together $5000 to buy something from someone to whom it clearly does not belong is insane. It was as if they were so excited at the prospect of getting their hands on this thing that they did not stop to think about.
To go even further by dismantling the unit and publishing all of the contained trade secrets on the web is even worse. To top it off, they drag the Apple employee's name through the mud as well. Nice job Gizmodo.
Now what about the rest of us? While we may not be thieves we certainly sit around waiting for whatever informational scraps get inappropriately leaked from Apple. Certainly the rumor sites double as Apple's free marketing, but the information we read here from "sources close to the matter" is certainly Apple's property as well. Unless the sources are permitted by Apple to specifically leak certain information, then we are guilty as well of obtaining that which is not ours to have -- Apple's proprietary trade secrets.
Personally, I don't know who Gruber's sources are or who the Mac Rumors sources are, but the information that flows on these top-secret projects are either controlled/intentional Apple leaks, or are from employees or partners who are failing to keep their confidentiality agreements with Apple.
Okay, so if somebody gives you too much change, you let them know and give it back. If somebody drops some money you pick it up and give it to them. If you find something that is lost, you turn it in for lost-and-found.
Sure, you can drop a quarter in a newspaper vending machine and take 5 newspapers, but isn't your integrity worth more than a quarter? Is it worth more than a prototype iPhone?
Certainly, what this guy did in the bar was obviously wrong. You do not walk out of a place with something that is not yours, you turn it in. Whether its a wallet, a twenty-dollar-bill, a credit card, or a prototype iPhone.
What Gizmodo did is absolutely ridiculous. To put together $5000 to buy something from someone to whom it clearly does not belong is insane. It was as if they were so excited at the prospect of getting their hands on this thing that they did not stop to think about.
To go even further by dismantling the unit and publishing all of the contained trade secrets on the web is even worse. To top it off, they drag the Apple employee's name through the mud as well. Nice job Gizmodo.
Now what about the rest of us? While we may not be thieves we certainly sit around waiting for whatever informational scraps get inappropriately leaked from Apple. Certainly the rumor sites double as Apple's free marketing, but the information we read here from "sources close to the matter" is certainly Apple's property as well. Unless the sources are permitted by Apple to specifically leak certain information, then we are guilty as well of obtaining that which is not ours to have -- Apple's proprietary trade secrets.
Personally, I don't know who Gruber's sources are or who the Mac Rumors sources are, but the information that flows on these top-secret projects are either controlled/intentional Apple leaks, or are from employees or partners who are failing to keep their confidentiality agreements with Apple.
is wikipedia editable by people like you and me
not that im saying that this is wrong but its not the best place to look for facts
quote me if I am wrong
What are you talking about? The government is in the position to prosecute a criminal charge if a complaint is filed with the police and an investigation leads the police or prosecutor to believe there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed.
I see. Thanks.
If it was me, I sure would have been tempted to contact Apple and ask for 5 minutes with Steve Jobs in exchange for returning the prototype.
But I wouldn't have the stones to do it.
s.