WRONG! and this is where I think the perception is getting skewed here... Apple asked for it but before giving it back Gizmod did a tear down of the equipment... That is ILLEGAL... You CANNOT take a part another companies prototype or any type of property for that matter without their consent and definitely cannot post pictures and video AFTER they asked for it back. There are actual black and white in writing laws against this. Gizmodo broke the law... I don't care if they were playing a prank or trying to scoop a good story or whatever excuse they might use, THEY BROKE THE LAW. End of story.
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.
Search Warrant For Lost Next-Generation iPhone Ordered Unsealed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WRONG! and this is where I think the perception is getting skewed here... Apple asked for it but before giving it back Gizmod did a tear down of the equipment... That is ILLEGAL... You CANNOT take a part another companies prototype or any type of property for that matter without their consent and definitely cannot post pictures and video AFTER they asked for it back. There are actual black and white in writing laws against this. Gizmodo broke the law... I don't care if they were playing a prank or trying to scoop a good story or whatever excuse they might use, THEY BROKE THE LAW. End of story.
I'm typing this on my MBP, and I don't necessarily like the way Apple is behaving lately. Besides, some folks on this forum have such sweet and helpful dispositions ...
Because he was handling stolen goods? And he was handling stolen goods at his home? And because he was illegally publishing Apple's trade secrets, also from his home?
This wasn't a retail phone, this was a prototype with unreleased IP. There are actual laws against running this story. And even if running the story wasn't illegal (which it was), they still damage/vandalized someone else's property before they gave it back... That is illegal 100%. Also Gizmodo was at that point disassembling stolen property as well. Lost or not, they purchased a phone from someone whom the phone DID NOT BELONG to and they did this knowingly... this is also Illegal, there is no disputing it because the law is black and white on this. Point blank, Gizmodo handled this whole thing like little snot nosed kids and they deserve to be treated like little punks.
If your car was stolen and you were able to show the police pictures of the thief with your car, his comments how he obtained the car and the thiefs address, I bet the police would be very interested. Even if you did get your car back. You can't steal something, and then return it weeks later (after you have earned lots of money with that stolen item like Gizmodo did) and assume that everything is a-ok. Nor can you knowingly buy stolen property and assume everything is a-ok. Really, this isn't rocket-science people!
Like I said, something similar has happened with stolen MacBooks. People managed to fond out where it was and they managed to get pictures of the thief with Photobooth. And the police took care of it, even whn it was just some individuals laptop.
Holy f***balls. Just read the Brian Lam letter. I always thought these guys were tools, but this is off the charts.
He first states that he needs Apple to say it's their phone because it could hurt Gizmodo's business and reputation otherwise. Then goes on to say he "GETS THAT IT WILL HURT SALES to say this the next iPhone."
And he's writing this to Steve Jobs....
How dumb do you have to be?
He first states that he needs Apple to say it's their phone because it could hurt Gizmodo's business and reputation otherwise. Then goes on to say he "GETS THAT IT WILL HURT SALES to say this the next iPhone."
And he's writing this to Steve Jobs....
How dumb do you have to be?
While everyone else is barking "why should this be news? etc. etc." You hit the nail right on the head why this issue is important.
Good job.
Please post a quote of the law they broke.
They did no such thing and made the proper actions to get the phone back to the original owner.
You misunderstand my point, well maybe you don't but I'll clarify. Apple isn't using any clout at all. The police are investigating because Apple had property stolen. It's not rocket science. The police are actually doing their job here because they don't want bad publicity, which by the way, is not coming from Apple. Don't get mad at Apple because the police are actually doing their job. Likewise, if Apple were using their clout, it would still ultimately be the police forces fault for following through. I mean, if someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?
This says is all.. Lots of crimes were being committed. They were obviously planning etc, how to make money etc.
Bad stuff is going to happen to someone...
Paying the 5 grand was a felony, even if it was just for access. The laws have been quoted in several threads about 3 dozen times each if you wanna go digging.
Even if we assume that is the case, how much does your phone contribute to your state's economy or tax receipts?
Still reading thru the CNET docs. It's just jaw dropping.
This is like a combination of "Burn after Reading" and "Fargo".
As John Gruber said, "When are they gonna buy the woodchipper?"
Depending on how badly this ends for all parties involved....I think we'll be seeing a feature film at some point. You just can't write this stuff, it's ridiculous.
This is like a combination of "Burn after Reading" and "Fargo".
As John Gruber said, "When are they gonna buy the woodchipper?"
Depending on how badly this ends for all parties involved....I think we'll be seeing a feature film at some point. You just can't write this stuff, it's ridiculous.
This has been beaten death in the other threads and you know it.
Proper action includes holding property ransom?
However, they did not pay the $5,000 for the stolen or lost phone. They paid for the exclusive rights to the story and access to the phone, something very common in journalism. They did not avoid getting the phone back to Apple at all. Gizmodo really made all the right moves.
Requesting proof of ownership is not holding property for ransom.
The "exclusive rights" junk is simply the spin they put on the situation after they got caught.
So you are saying they didn't know it was Apple's?
TuffLuffJimmy said:
They paid $5000 for a stolen phone. That is an undisputed fact. Trafficking in stolen goods can land you in jail for a year.
that does not change the fact that they committed a felony when they bought that phone and that they earned lots of money with that stolen property before they returned it to Apple.
Or do you think that it would be OK for me to steal your car, disassemble it and return it to you two weeks later?