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.
Steve Jobs on Stolen Prototype iPhone: Not Going to Let It Slide.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and what are these core values he speaks of anyway? Making money?? Hmmm..
you must find it difficult… taking authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.
The employee never said it was stolen from his bag. In fact nobody said that without maybe in front.
You already worked for Jobs?
It makes them look normal.
Utter nonsense. Stick to the vision you created inside your head. You've probably seen as much of the Soviet era as from Jobs' "tyrannical" conditions.
I won't.
Not letting people steal and destroy your stuff and then let them go unpunished?
Oh, please, do show me the truth. Elaborate.
Apple didn't make the decision to indave Chen's home, the DA did. Yes, Apple reportedly told the DA that it wanted to pursue the matter of the theft (whether or not it was "found" in the bar, the moment the thief began attempting to sell it, it became stolen by definition under California law), but the final decision was in the hands of the DA. After all, in criminal court, a matter is between "The People" and the accused, not the alleged victim and the accused.
This is not petty. The deliberate revelation of trade secrets and the intentional sale of stolen goods are serious crimes, and it could certainly be argued that the demand for a letter acknowledging that this was an iPhone prototype (which Giz subsequently monetized by publishing the letter on its site) prior to its return to Apple constituted extortion. Failure to prosecute those crimes may lead to erosion of America's legal system and legitimization of corporate espionage.
What he said. +1
(when I will finally learn enough english to express myself like this?
)There should be.
(wait now for the accusations of this idea being tyrannical, a censorship or judgmental)
They already knew it was Apple's. Why else would the finder bother contacting them? How did they know? The owner's name was known. Remember?
The letter was a prize trophy. Extortion, plain and simple.
(I'm editing, so I'll add this)
As I read over a month ago, before this horse was beaten to death, the people who had possession of the phone would have done better to have sold the phone to one of Apple's competitors than to try and sell it to a "journalist". Not saying it's right, but the full force of the law probably would have been sidestepped.
So by the comments I've read, my understanding is that Apple should roll-over and not offer any resistance to their property being taken and used for extortion purposes.
So by that logic, Google, if they were to lose a Nexus Two, the laws of California should be put aside, because they are a multi-billion dollar corporation?
I once had my apartment burglarized and my stereo, VCR and entire CD collection were stolen. Because I had a job and could afford those things, and the perpetrator was of lesser means, I should not have called the police? I shouldn't have gotten back my stereo that the perp had sold? I should have just rolled over and been content, knowing that my misfortune aided another?
Never got the VCR (a fancy $600 dollar model in 1997 money) or my CD collection back. Later received a letter from the Attorney General's office that the case was dropped due to "lack of evidence". Yet they knew who did it.
From my own personal experience, I have no sympathy for those that deal in stolen property.
So by that logic, Google, if they were to lose a Nexus Two, the laws of California should be put aside, because they are a multi-billion dollar corporation?
I once had my apartment burglarized and my stereo, VCR and entire CD collection were stolen. Because I had a job and could afford those things, and the perpetrator was of lesser means, I should not have called the police? I shouldn't have gotten back my stereo that the perp had sold? I should have just rolled over and been content, knowing that my misfortune aided another?
Never got the VCR (a fancy $600 dollar model in 1997 money) or my CD collection back. Later received a letter from the Attorney General's office that the case was dropped due to "lack of evidence". Yet they knew who did it.
From my own personal experience, I have no sympathy for those that deal in stolen property.
a lot of people have incorrectly stated that asking for a letter from apple was the extortion. the real extortion was during the phone call between gawker chief and steve jobs in which gawker said they haven't received enough love from apple lately (exclusive review of new products maybe?) and says that's why they have to go out and do this kind of things (buying a stolen property)
That's extortion?! I think Gizmodo is completely in the wrong and Apple has every right to pursue legal action for a variety of reasons. However this must be extortion-lite. Asking for "love" or statement of ownership? Apple wanting their property back got Gizmodo all they needed with regards to a statement. It will be interesting to see how this all falls out in the coming months or years.
I don't know. Normally it won't be extortion, for sure. But here they knew the name of the employee who had the phone, they knew it was a prototype and Jobs asked them to give it back. I am pretty sure that's enough, if not, they can give it to the police. Asking for the written statement, in this particular case, was just to get real proof from Apple about the prototype being theirs - this puts Apple in a pretty uncomfortable position and judging by the email it was done knowingly.
If anyone wonders why our society is quickly going down the crapper it's because way too many people "let it slide". Principles & integrity are important if you are to be successful-as a person or a corporation. Thanks Steve.
The law in all kinds of areas loses it value. That law about not walking against the lights... yeah that lost a lot of it's value.
Plus this isn't corporate espionage OK. That stuff happens but you'll never hear about it.
Gawker, could care less about the Apple, Its the people who visit the site the have the pasion. The site owner only cares about money. He picks nitche markets and exploites them, which is not a legal issue until you break the law.
