1. What, I can't be colorful? He's the one who described it like a hostage situation. I just elaborated.
2. Show me where I said that.
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
1. What, I can't be colorful? He's the one who described it like a hostage situation. I just elaborated.
2. Show me where I said that.
Well if Gizmodo BOUGHT IT for $5000 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_apple_iphone), then someone SOLD IT for $5000.
Who told you that someone "found" the phone at all and didn't steal it from the engineer at the bar. I for one haven't seen it. Not yet that is.
Um... Because Gizmodo practically BRAGGED that they bought it from the finder for 5000 bucks, after he offered it to them? I mean, Gizmodo said it, so I shouldn't believe that it's true... But frankly, if you publicly stated that you bought "lost" property from someone who wasn't the owner... That's proof enough, in a court of law.
Because the guy CLAIMED to have made a reasonable effort. From Gizmodo's perspective, a reasonable effort was made.
First, let's pretend that calling applecare was reasonable (it wasn't). You ask what else did he have to do. The answer is clearly written in the California law. He has to TAKE THE DAMNED PHONE TO THE POLICE. Only after he's done that and the appropriate waiting time has passed does he own the phone, at which point he is free to sell it.
Sigh.
Nick Denton, the founder and proprietor of Gawker Media, has flatly stated numerous times including in interviews and his twitter feed that Jason Chen bought the phone for $5,000 with Denton's approval.
It wasn't sold... the person who gave it to Gizmodo "found" $5,000 in an envelope nearby!
That's not good enough, in a court of law. Like many other people on here have said... It's like buying a Rolex (or TV, whatever) from a guy in a back alley. He might have SAID that it wasn't stolen, but you have a reasonable expectation, according to the law, to believe that he's lying. It's GIZMODO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE SELLER... BY LAW!
The guy actually choose the most appropriate way. He contacted Apple - the owner. The drunk guy, the bar and the police are not the owners of this phone, Apple is.
Yes, and once apple wrote the letter, Gizmodo THEN knew it was stolen, and kindly returned it to them. The point is, until they heard from Apple, they had no evidence that the phone was in fact stolen. The guy they bought it from said he FOUND it. This is a totally reasonable story. It was only after the fact that it became clear he did not make a reasonable effort to locate the owner.
This will cause a massive PR backlash against Apple if the news goes massively mainstream and someone goes to jail or they file a civil suit. Nobody but fanboys like those here will support a little guy being beat up by a huge company like Apple. The public will not side with Jobs.
You're simply lying, as you generally do. He did not "call Apple", as in, an authorized representative or Apple Corporate, he called a customer helpline. Apple did not "refuse" the phone, a low-level employee who is not empowered to represent the company's property rights passed it up the chain of command, and in the meantime, the thief sold it.
No, because after they came into possession of what they realized was an Apple prototype, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHO THE OWNER WAS and how it could be turned in. And instead of doing that as the law requires, they made use of the phone for themselves and revealed Apple's trade secrets.
Prison. No question.
If you buy a "found wallet" and then realize there's a credit card with dude's name on it, you don't get to use the credit card just because the guy who sold it told you said that he couldn't find the owner. You've got the guy's name, you have to return it.
Nope, just letting you know how others percieve you so if you care you can choose to correct it.
Got no problem with differing opinions but your incessant childish rantings are embarrassing, even if you were arguing the opposite viewpoint in the same way it wouldn't matter.
I had some deep s*** to say but after reading the last 10 pages i forgot it all.
1. Why does no one care that the person who found it sold it to gizmodo. what he did was just as bad as what gizmodo did. Actually what he did was worse as he was the one who many thought did not do enough to try to return it to apple, breaking California state law.
2. Seriously guys this is ridiculous. Before any apple press conference there are many pictures of supposed next generation apple products. All of these pages have no evidence to how these images were found. Gizmodo is the only one honest about it so everyone cares when they do it. If Gizmodo wanted they could just give some blurry pictures and say they got them sent in form an anonymous source and this situation would not of exploded at all.
3. Does anyone else think that this would not have been nearly as big if apple did not ask for it back. That was the only think that truly confirms it actually is an apple product.
1. Why does no one care that the person who found it sold it to gizmodo. what he did was just as bad as what gizmodo did. Actually what he did was worse as he was the one who many thought did not do enough to try to return it to apple, breaking California state law.
2. Seriously guys this is ridiculous. Before any apple press conference there are many pictures of supposed next generation apple products. All of these pages have no evidence to how these images were found. Gizmodo is the only one honest about it so everyone cares when they do it. If Gizmodo wanted they could just give some blurry pictures and say they got them sent in form an anonymous source and this situation would not of exploded at all.
3. Does anyone else think that this would not have been nearly as big if apple did not ask for it back. That was the only think that truly confirms it actually is an apple product.
Wrong. They admitted that they knew it was real once they examined it, and were particularly convinced once they cracked it open and saw Apple branding and serials on the internals. This was long before the letter. To say nothing of the intent conveyed by the purchase itself.
LOL @ "refused to take the phone back."
Riiiiight.
What's next? The thief could have just called Apple Records if they had a Beatles song on the iPhone and say, "What, I tried. The back of it has an Apple and everything!"
This is patently false. The specific legal writing has been posted many times, and it makes reference to KNOWING the property is stolen. If I give you a birthday present, and I stole that present but didn't tell you, you really think that you'll end up in jail?
Not exactly. There is not a single mention of a 'sale' or 'purchase' on their website. They only used the word "got". Nothing else.
And no wonder, because that would have made them liable [right from the start] but now Gizmodo can simply retract their story, and admit that it was in fact just bail money. Everything for a great story I guess.
Authorized representative for what? All Apple employees are authorized representatives for something. Perhaps the guy could have done better but this does not automatically make him a criminal.
They had no proof it was an Apple prototype until Apple confirmed it to them in a letter, at which point they returned it. Get it?