Ah so your just a Troll then. I shouldn't feed you. Go find your bridge and rest under 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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah so your just a Troll then. I shouldn't feed you. Go find your bridge and rest under it
You're right, this is probably what a reasonable person would do. Yet we know that Gray called the bar multiple times looking for it over the next several days, but whoever found it was no where to be found at that point.
OMFG...
FIRST OF ALL...I am talking about a regular iPhone here (in response to the quoted post I was replying to). SO no. I am not going to email Steve Jobs because I found a lost iPhone 3Gs.
I would not drive straight to the police station as I would give the owner a chance to contact me via the bar -or- use info on the phone to contact the owner myself (which I have done in the past when I found a lost Razr).
If no one claimed it, then yes - I would contact the police. But I am not going to go thru that hassle until I try to reunite the owner with the device myself first.
Ok,
So ruling Jobs out, my other suggestions are still valid. Police, any info you got from the phone that you could, etc. So many simple steps that you could have done this person did not do according to articles written on Gizmodo.
You guys are unbelievable.
I can NOT believe that you would support an unelegant site like gizmodo over Apple.
Everything Apple does is for the benefit of us, the consumer. There is a reason Steve Jobs was named CEO of the year. I mean, why follow a site like macrumors if you are not going to give apple your support. I would have certainly turned in the phone to apple as soon as i realized that it was a prototype. Don't know about others, Seeing things prematurely ruins the magic for me. I think that Steve Jobs would have actually rewarded gizmodo for turning in the iphone prototype, but now they are in a heap of trouble.
sort of like how north korea rations food for the benefit of the citizen? sorry but how does stuff like banning political cartoons, closing your device platform, suing customers, and threatening journalists benefit the consumer? how does alienating developers to only use apple code for apps benefit consumers? how does telling adobe flash to F off benefit consumers? how does ...etc you get it...sorry apple doesn't consider consumers other than "how can we sell this dumb SH*T to these dumb as*es
This whole thing is incredibly pathetic. What's next?... Is the CIA going to kidnap the guy who found the phone and torture him with water boarding then pull off his finger nails to find out more information?
I love Apple products but some people here talk about Apple like they are some higher being.... get real!
I love Apple products but some people here talk about Apple like they are some higher being.... get real!
you're a rationalizing idiot
so, if you lost your keys, and i paid $500 for your keys, i can keep your car? it's not stolen, you lost your keys, and i paid for it. right?
yes, it was STOLEN. when you FIND a LOST object, and then PAY for something that was NOT PROPERLY TRANSFERED, you payed for a STOLEN OBJECT.
this is the result of a nation of "everything is owed to me" syndrome.
so, if you lost your keys, and i paid $500 for your keys, i can keep your car? it's not stolen, you lost your keys, and i paid for it. right?
yes, it was STOLEN. when you FIND a LOST object, and then PAY for something that was NOT PROPERLY TRANSFERED, you payed for a STOLEN OBJECT.
this is the result of a nation of "everything is owed to me" syndrome.
Missing the Point
So I don't normally post, but after reading through a bunch of these pages I'm amazed at how many people are missing the point.
The point to REACT (the division of the Police Force doing this work) is to do exactly this! They are in the business of protecting all of the computer companies in the area. Apple didn't even have to file a complaint (if they did) because there was enough evidence on the Internet to force and investigation. In matters of law the party that was violated doesn't actually have to file charges ... it just make matters easier.
So I don't normally post, but after reading through a bunch of these pages I'm amazed at how many people are missing the point.
The point to REACT (the division of the Police Force doing this work) is to do exactly this! They are in the business of protecting all of the computer companies in the area. Apple didn't even have to file a complaint (if they did) because there was enough evidence on the Internet to force and investigation. In matters of law the party that was violated doesn't actually have to file charges ... it just make matters easier.
Here is what is going to happen:
- The police will look through all of the emails and computer data to see if a crime was committed.
- If the police think a crime was committed, they will present the data to the District Attorney. If the D.A. agree that a case can be made that they actually think they can WIN, they will file charges.
- If there is not enough evidence, no charges will be filed.
- After a certain amount of time (depending on local laws) he can ask for his equipment back. It will be months before that happens, regardless of whether charges are filed or not.
I know you all blame Apple, and I'm sure they made the police aware of the situation, but it wasn't Apple's decision to raid the house. It was the police, based off of evidence that Apple gave them that a crime may have been committed.
Regardless of how hard Apple pushed, it's in the police and D.A.'s hands now. They will decide if charges are filed or not.
Gizmodo needs to make a STRONG case to get their stuff back any time soon and needs to file with the court ASAP.
- The police will look through all of the emails and computer data to see if a crime was committed.
- If the police think a crime was committed, they will present the data to the District Attorney. If the D.A. agree that a case can be made that they actually think they can WIN, they will file charges.
- If there is not enough evidence, no charges will be filed.
- After a certain amount of time (depending on local laws) he can ask for his equipment back. It will be months before that happens, regardless of whether charges are filed or not.
I know you all blame Apple, and I'm sure they made the police aware of the situation, but it wasn't Apple's decision to raid the house. It was the police, based off of evidence that Apple gave them that a crime may have been committed.
Regardless of how hard Apple pushed, it's in the police and D.A.'s hands now. They will decide if charges are filed or not.
Gizmodo needs to make a STRONG case to get their stuff back any time soon and needs to file with the court ASAP.
Gizmodo stole this phone **** them, they know how private Apple is. We all know how private Apple is about their products. They are obviously quiet for reasons that are substantial and reasons that we the general public should not know about. Gizmodo took advantage of the situation for the gain of gizmodo. Its not news worthy it can only be used for harm to Apple and no good to anybody. The asian companies are probably cloning that mofo right now and trying to get it to market or hacks or whatever before launch.
Apple has every right to tear these guys a new azzhole. I say GO STEVE Fugg these idiots up. I will cheer from the sidelines
More like a DRUNK loser lost the iPhone. Then someone found the drunk guys LOST iPhone and sold it. I see as the actions of the finder and giz as stupid and childish, but Gray's actions are plan retarded. He needs to get fired for it. A small mistake leading to a news reporters house getting searched?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I applaud Apple
Hey you mess with the BIG dog and you get bit, although in the case I'd have to say devoured.
Phone lost, Phone found and returned to Apple with NO publicity about the new phone = Everyone is happy
NOooooooooooooo Phone lost phone sold, you spread it all over the net with in hours KNOWING Apple's security and policies , pictures movies and your surprised / shocked.
Consider it a lesson learned.
DONT MESS WITH THE BIG DOG.
Hey you mess with the BIG dog and you get bit, although in the case I'd have to say devoured.
Phone lost, Phone found and returned to Apple with NO publicity about the new phone = Everyone is happy
NOooooooooooooo Phone lost phone sold, you spread it all over the net with in hours KNOWING Apple's security and policies , pictures movies and your surprised / shocked.
Consider it a lesson learned.
DONT MESS WITH THE BIG DOG.
Well first of all, the phone didn't belong to Gray Powell; it belonged to Apple. And according to Gizmodo, the person that found it attempted to reunite the phone with Apple by calling several Apple employees and such, but ultimately they didn't accept it. So the person must assume that since the owner refuses to take it that it is theirs. So the person sold it to Gizmodo for $5,000.
Dude - PLEASE go back and read the post that I was replying to and then re-read my post. You're taking what I said out of context. I am not talking about the stolen 4g phone!
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9768466/
Amen.
Gizmodo stole this phone **** them, they know how private Apple is. We all know how private Apple is about their products. They are obviously quiet for reasons that are substantial and reasons that we the general public should not know about. Gizmodo took advantage of the situation for the gain of gizmodo. Its not news worthy it can only be used for harm to Apple and no good to anybody. The asian companies are probably cloning that mofo right now and trying to get it to market or hacks or whatever before launch.
Apple has every right to tear these guys a new azzhole. I say GO STEVE Fugg these idiots up. I will cheer from the sidelines
Gizmodo has another problem: Gabrielle Darbyshire, "counsel" for Gizmodo, does not appear to be a licensed attorney in the United States.
A search for Gabrielle Darbyshire and Gaby Darbyshire in the attorney directory of New York State shows that she is not admitted to practice. Further, from her Linkedin profile it clearly states that she has "a law degree from City University, and is a member of the Bar of England and Wales." She is not admitted to practice law in the U.S. and cannot hold herself out as legal counsel nor retain such title within the U.S. Her statements to law enforcement officials where she refers to herself as a "legal representative" are untruthful.
Ms. Darbyshire's linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=5250.
NY Courts Attorney Directory: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch.
Further, the case she cites held the opposite of what she claims:
In O'Grady v. Superior Court, the court held that journalists and their sources lose constitutional protection when they publish information that a business classifies as a “trade secret.” On p. 5 of the ruling, Judge Kleinberg defined “trade secret” from the California penal code as follows:
“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
http://daringfireball.net/misc/2005/03/apple-decision-2005-03-11.pdf
John Gruber (Daring Fireball) wrote about this case: http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/ogrady
A search for Gabrielle Darbyshire and Gaby Darbyshire in the attorney directory of New York State shows that she is not admitted to practice. Further, from her Linkedin profile it clearly states that she has "a law degree from City University, and is a member of the Bar of England and Wales." She is not admitted to practice law in the U.S. and cannot hold herself out as legal counsel nor retain such title within the U.S. Her statements to law enforcement officials where she refers to herself as a "legal representative" are untruthful.
Ms. Darbyshire's linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=5250.
NY Courts Attorney Directory: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch.
Further, the case she cites held the opposite of what she claims:
In O'Grady v. Superior Court, the court held that journalists and their sources lose constitutional protection when they publish information that a business classifies as a “trade secret.” On p. 5 of the ruling, Judge Kleinberg defined “trade secret” from the California penal code as follows:
“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
http://daringfireball.net/misc/2005/03/apple-decision-2005-03-11.pdf
John Gruber (Daring Fireball) wrote about this case: http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/ogrady
Awesome!
The cops who got to do this must have had a blast.
Boss:
"Go beat down the door of some computer nerd who thinks the world of himself and empty his house of all his 'precious.' "
Officers:
"We're on the way.... woot!"
How much fun would that have been? And then to see the look on his face when he comes home to a home full of police.... but, but, but... you can't legally do this.... whaaa.
Priceless!
I hope "Cops" was there filming.
The cops who got to do this must have had a blast.
Boss:
"Go beat down the door of some computer nerd who thinks the world of himself and empty his house of all his 'precious.' "
Officers:
"We're on the way.... woot!"
How much fun would that have been? And then to see the look on his face when he comes home to a home full of police.... but, but, but... you can't legally do this.... whaaa.
Priceless!
I hope "Cops" was there filming.
This is getting way to serious, I wonder who started this police thing... They don't even know whether it was lost or stolen, so how do they have the right to take computers and break into the poor guy's house? Couldn't they have warned him before or something?
Interesting. I was (and am) of the opinion that Apple lost trade secret status because they didn't take reasonable care of keeping things secret when their employee lost his phone in a bar. On the other hand, it seems reasonable that anything inside the phone, things that wouldn't be normally visible, would still be covered as a trade secret.
If you look at what should have happened: Engineer loses phone. Guy finds phone. Guy looks at the phone. Guy looks at the back of the phone (some iPods would have the name of the owner engraved on the back) and everywhere else to find a name. Guy turns the phone on to find information of the owner. If he knows how to use an iPhone, he could look in the address book. Or look at a list of recent callers. Or check the mail application. Then the guy would look very carefully if there is a serial number somewhere; if it is an iPhone then maybe Apple can find the owner through the serial number.
So if the finder had done very reasonable and very legal things to find the identity of the owner of the phone, he could have learned a lot of things about the phone that Apple may have wanted to keep secret. Let's say the new iPhone comes with a very clever new mail application - the finder would now know this. And all those things wouldn't be trade secrets anymore because Apple lost the phone through carelessness.
But if the finder takes the phone apart, that could be a very different matter.
Balls!
The thing was lost for a few hours, and then it's OK to SELL the damned thing ya figure?
I'd call it stealing too.
When you find property like that, and you even have some idea that it was lost maybe from the pocket of the guy sitting next to you at the bar, I don't think you have the rights to SELL it a few hours later! Lol.
The problem with North Americans is they are just THIEVES.
This would never happen in Japan. I once left a really cool zippo lighter on a pinball machine in an arcade, and came back 4 hours later and it was still sitting there - with about 50 high school kids all around the arcade - NOT ONE of the Japanese kids would even think of taking or touching someone's property like that. They just let it sit there, and I came back and was amazed, but my friend living there said - this was totally expected and normal - nobody steals in Japan - they have HONOR.
In North America, I'll bet you anything that if I left that same lighter on the church pew while I go for communion, it would be GONE when I came back to my seat. That's the thing that sickens me about this story more so than anything else. My experience of the Japanese culture and how they are so dang honest and good, and how it conflicts with the realities of being born and raised right here in North America, and knowing what dirtbags we all are here. - think about it.
More like a DRUNK loser lost the iPhone. Then someone found the drunk guys LOST iPhone and sold it. I see as the actions of the finder and giz as stupid and childish, but Gray's actions are plan retarded. He needs to get fired for it. A small mistake leading to a news reporters house getting searched?
It is more then childish, it is illegal. Even if Gray was drunk, the law doesn't give a crap about that. What the law does care is if the founder did enough to return it to the owner and if Gizmodo knew what they were buying was stolen property/did not do their job to make sure it wasn't stolen.
Selling lost property is illegal period. Regardless if the person who lost it was drunk at the time. Plenty of sober people lose their phones as well.......