So, Gizmodo knew that it had a acquired an unreleased Apple product, posted images and details about it without Apple's permissions. Yeah, they are the good guys. The Apple employee screwed up, but let's not pretend Gizmodo or the guy/gal who sold it to Gizmodo were on the up-and-up.
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
So, Gizmodo knew that it had a acquired an unreleased Apple product, posted images and details about it without Apple's permissions. Yeah, they are the good guys. The Apple employee screwed up, but let's not pretend Gizmodo or the guy/gal who sold it to Gizmodo were on the up-and-up.
Well, he couldn't actually look up the recent call list since the phone was remotely inactivated by Apple. 
I'm getting information saying otherwise:
The person who found it could be asking: "Hey, have you lost an iPhone?"
The finder then contacted AppleCare who obviously wouldn't be able to help him, becuase they would have no information on it. The finder did however, have information about the owner of the device, as made evident by him passing on the information to Gizmodo which was published.
I don't think they legally need anyone's permissions to publish photos of a phone they found or bought. (circumstances of it was originally found aside).
Am i wrong, but didn't Gizmodo tear into the phone first? Disassemble something with Apple written all over it? I think this is the part i have the biggest problem with.
I don't know what the law has to say about this situation -- however, I would have a hard time finding for Apple given that they appear to have sloppily handled an unreleased product.
In any event, I think Gizmodo and the original finder took advantage of the situation -- it's up to you to decide if it fits your ethics or not.
you wold be surprised by the way the Law seas things, sometimes the Law and the way we were brought up to believe are 2 different concepts
Here's the thing though..... if you found something that was very clearly an Apple prototype phone, would you leave it with a bar owner who you don't know or would you keep it and call Apple in the morning? What is the bar owner going to do, throw it on eBay that night? You don't know. It is 100% feasible that a reasonable person would keep it to call Apple in the morning. Apple didn't retrieve it. Criminal case over.
There's nothing there. You can not like it, as many people have shown. But there's nothing there. This isn't like debating the iPad where nobody is right - there is in fact a right and wrong answer.
There's nothing there. You can not like it, as many people have shown. But there's nothing there. This isn't like debating the iPad where nobody is right - there is in fact a right and wrong answer.
Apple stands to lose considerably more than $10 in profits if enough people decide to not purchase a 3GS because of the confirmed new features.
The value of the phone itself is not the question. It's the cost of the lost sales within the current product cycle. This also goes out to those crying "marketing ploy" and "intentional leak". There's just no way it's either of those
Wait, why would that get them off. Let's assume Giz is believed the finder/seller and they were gambling that the device was real or fake. The finder/seller said it was an Apple device and they bought it and confirmed it. There is no defense to say, well, the seller told me it was an Apple device before I bought it, but since he may have been lying, I'm in the clear. Maybe, just maybe, if the opposite was true would Giz have a defense. "The seller told me it was his and he had the right to sell it to us. We had no reason to question him and no reason to check further. How were we supposed to know it was rightfully Apple's property."
I think if Apple just lets this go, then it just may be a controlled leak. Even my mom knew about it from basic tv news. It's free publicity. It's making me wonder. Save a few bucks on ads.
the thing that makes this story seem so fake is the 5k selling price. If you found un-released version of an iphone you gotta no that you can probably get 20k for it.
What? So, if the victim of the theft made the theft easier, the thief should get off? You leave your Macbook in the backseat of your unlocked car for the world to see and it gets stolen. The thief should get a pass because you were dumb enough to leave an invitation?
PROVE IT!
Why, would an Apple Employee, TRUSTED to HAVE a PROTOTYPE in his possession, take it to a BAR that is FULL OF PEOPLE and CAN SEE a digital device, then ACCIDENTLY LEAVE that SECRET PROTOTYPE in a PUBLIC PLACE when he left and then NOT ATTEMPT to call, track or contact the device before it was wiped????
I'm waiting
I think Gizmodo better hope Apple doesn't take them to court, because it's a pretty obvious open & shut case. I also think they have cause to go after the original "finder" of the phone. All the rationalization in the world won't get them anywhere if it comes before a jury.
Damages have to be actual lost profits. Good luck quantifying that in court.
I don't think the employees of Gizmodo should receive more than 6 months prison time. Granted, being by their own admission a property worth ~$5000, I guess technically that does constitute a felony, but what real harm came of it. Punishment, yes, but I call for leniency.
Apple will use the recent momentum of iPhone purchases. They're still selling out in my local O2 and Orange stores.
It wouldn't be his problem if the bartender stole it. Besides...most bartenders would put it in the lost and found. I'm sure people lose their phones there often. I bet their not gonna be like "An iPhone!? Awesome, I think I'll keep this!" Especially if they value their jobs...
And you could do a follow up. Come back in a few days and ask if anyone claimed the phone.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to have a debate.