Apple lost a multi-million dollar R&D prototype. Get that through your head.
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
Apple lost a multi-million dollar R&D prototype. Get that through your head.
very true ANY company would do this to a Rumor Site.
Apple Has Done ZERO WRONG AND HAS followed protocol and procedure
why? Imagine if it were your company who lost the phone
So Many Wrongs does not Journalism make
At what point does Gizmodo say Journalism begins and therefore they are immune from prosecution? (Immune may be the wrong word)
1) A device is left behind at a bar by the owner.
2) Someone, not the owner, picks it up and takes it home.
3) Someone, not the owner, snoops around the data in the device.
4) Someone makes a half-assed attempt to return the device, before deciding they would rather sell it.
5) Gizmodo buys the device, not from the owner, but from the person who kept it.
6) Gizmodo pokes around the device, takes pictures, shows off "serial numbers" on the device.
7) Gizmodo TAKES THE THING APART! Remember, this is not their device. It AT LEAST belongs to Apple, if not the person who left it at the bar.
8) Gizmodo names the person who lost the device, embarrassing him at least, endangering his employment, etc etc etc.
9) Gizmodo publishes photos and details of a device they do not own = who knows how many corporate secret laws they broke there.
10) Gizmodo grins - We are journalists!
Now, what if that device had been anything but an iPhone? Instead of "device," read this back with anything else in it's place. Medicine? A new weapon? An 8 slice toaster with built-in Wifi. A new design for a frisbee.
Do the rules changes because it's an "i-something?"
At what point does Gizmodo say Journalism begins and therefore they are immune from prosecution? (Immune may be the wrong word)
1) A device is left behind at a bar by the owner.
2) Someone, not the owner, picks it up and takes it home.
3) Someone, not the owner, snoops around the data in the device.
4) Someone makes a half-assed attempt to return the device, before deciding they would rather sell it.
5) Gizmodo buys the device, not from the owner, but from the person who kept it.
6) Gizmodo pokes around the device, takes pictures, shows off "serial numbers" on the device.
7) Gizmodo TAKES THE THING APART! Remember, this is not their device. It AT LEAST belongs to Apple, if not the person who left it at the bar.
8) Gizmodo names the person who lost the device, embarrassing him at least, endangering his employment, etc etc etc.
9) Gizmodo publishes photos and details of a device they do not own = who knows how many corporate secret laws they broke there.
10) Gizmodo grins - We are journalists!
Now, what if that device had been anything but an iPhone? Instead of "device," read this back with anything else in it's place. Medicine? A new weapon? An 8 slice toaster with built-in Wifi. A new design for a frisbee.
Do the rules changes because it's an "i-something?"
They publicly humilitated Gray. They aren't journalists, but bloggers. There's a difference.
They only lost it because they trusted a million dollar prototype with a 27 year old drunk engineer.
Yup.
All parties had the right to remain silent... until Apple and/or the police decided to loudly open a HUGE can of whoop-ass.
Well played.
F*CK Gawker, Gizmodo, Chen, et al.
I find it highly amusing that Gawker is crying foul about the little felon's seized
computers, but could not have cared less about Apple's unlawfully gained prototype.
I want to see Gaby Darbyshire-is that an English name or what?-stripped searched and fondled.
computers, but could not have cared less about Apple's unlawfully gained prototype.
I want to see Gaby Darbyshire-is that an English name or what?-stripped searched and fondled.
You understand part of his job was field testing right?
You understand it was his birthday right? Why would he not be partying on his birthday? He just happened to lose the phone there.
Since Gray is the guy who apparently filed the police report, and he likely now has a lawyer, I seriously hope he's preparing a subpoena to find out your identity so he can sue you for your repeated slander.
EXACTLY even if apple did not get the phone back if the guy did at least one thing say a phone call or left it at the police station for however long it is there i think its 24hrs then it is legally his. and gizmodo is at no fault the way i see it even if it was stolen there money would of been retuned and the device given back to apple at the polices demand. as under Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code states that no search warrant can be issued to a publisher, editor or reporter in electronic or print media, in relation to any story they were working on or their sources. so there computers cannot be taken regardless for reporting trade secrets
Shield laws protect sources, not journalists from doing illegal things to get a story.
And we all know that bloggers are NOT journalists.
The phone.
Why are so many people having issues and saying it's not stolen, when it clearly is? (not directly aimed at you)
I'll ignore the non-sequitur.
Sure. So I steal the car, ride all over the country, and then when I see flashing lights in the rear view mirror, I pull over and stop and hand them the keys. No problem, right?
Yeah, and that girl wouldn't have been attacked if she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt, right?
Some of the responses here are ridiculous. If Gizmo committed a crime, they should be punished. Just because we may read their blog, or think the guys are funny, doesn't change any of that.
This crime isn't an internet flame war. It's real life.
I think a person who loses a million dollar prototype because he/she was drunk deserves to be humiliated. They lost Apple millions of bucks.
My profile clearly states i'm 14.
Really?
I didn't check out your profile...oops! Forget my last comment! I was saying worse things at 14 haha
Not at all. There are millions and millions of iPhones and even more millions of iPods in the USA alone. If we discount those that are in Apple's warehouse and in Apple's stores, the huge huge majority of these phones are not owned by Apple. When I call Apple and tell them that I found an iPhone, the chance that the iPhone that I found is owned by Apple is probably one in thousand. When the finder contacted the standard support numbers, the person he talked to had no reason to suspect that the iPhone found was Apple's property.
By the way, if you go to www.apple.com, and click on "Contact us", you'll find the "Corporate Address" 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, and the phone number 408.996.1010. Maybe someone in the USA can try to find out who answers under that phone number. I suspect this would have been a more appropriate number than some support number, which I suspect was called not to find the owner, but to be able to claim that Apple was contacted.
Nonsense. "Legal representative" is not the same as "legal counsel." The former is a position or role that she holds at the company and so her statement is factually truthful; she IS legal representative at Gizmodo. And you don't have to be a lawyer to hold such a position. Nowhere does she claim she is admitted to practice in an American state bar nor does she claim she is providing legal advice, which is what is illegal (and which makes no sense anyway. Are you claiming she provided legal advice to the POLICE in her letter?). Speaking as a lawyer, nothing in her letter violates anything (her letter even ends with a note that it is being copied to counsel). At worst, her letter provides what she believes is legal information, which is the same thing 99% of the posts here do and which is perfectly legal. She has not represented she is a lawyer nor claimed she is providing legal advice.
Gizmodo may be in trouble but this isn't it.