iPhone HD Leaked?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Mike F

OMFG, are you seriously comparing someone who picked up a phone left on the floor at a bar with someone who jumps into a running car and takes off at a convenience store

I suppose someone who finds a lost dog on the street is the same as someone who walks into a school and kidnaps a child?

This has to go in the knee-jerk Apple appologist hall of fame.

Yes I am. What's different?

Your example is redonkulous. They would be the same if the person found a dog and tried to sell it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Mike F

OMFG, are you seriously comparing someone who picked up a phone left on the floor at a bar with someone who jumps into a running car and takes off at a convenience store

What if a Ford engineer drove a prototype Mustang to the bar, left the keys on the bar stool and left the bar. The guy at the bar takes the car, phones 1-800-Ford says he has a prototype Mustang and then sells it to Car and Driver Magazine. How is that any different than what happened?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What if a Ford engineer drove a prototype Mustang to the bar, left the keys on the bar stool and left the bar. The guy at the bar takes the car, phones 1-800-Ford says he has a prototype Mustang and then sells it to Car and Driver Magazine. How is that any different than what happened?

Trying to extrapolate to something like this really doesn't make any sense. There are clearly different factors in the two scenarios that make them not at all similar, and I don't really see the point of the whole exercise to begin with.

[Burninator]

So I am sure Gizmodo made a bunch of money that day they posted the leaked iPhone stuff but this can't be beneficial long term, can it?

No doubt they will be completely black balled from any Apple event from now till the sun burns out. And for what? Pretty much what everyone already knew anyways and what they will for sure know in about 5 weeks. Seems like a bad idea to burn the Apple bridge when Apple is one of the most interesting topics on tech blogs. I doubt Gizmodo is going to get much traffic for the next Steve Jobs keynote when they don't have someone there live blogging it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by valo403

Trying to extrapolate to something like this really doesn't make any sense. There are clearly different factors in the two scenarios that make them not at all similar, and I don't really see the point of the whole exercise to begin with.

Look I am not a legal expert so I don't understand the ins and outs of the law. But this is a message board and I didn't even quote you, so either explain how it isn't similar or don't respond to it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Look I am not a legal expert so I don't understand the ins and outs of the law. But this is a message board and I didn't even quote you, so either explain how it isn't similar or don't respond to it.

There's nothing leagal about how it isn't similar. If you can't tell the difference between someone picking up a phone from a bar stool and someone picking up a set of keys, finding the car, starting it up and driving away I'm not sure what to tell you.

Ask yourself this, how many times a night does someone lose a phone at a bar never to see it again? Ask the same question about losing keys and having a car disappear. They aren't comparable because one is set in aworld of fantasy.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Should have compared it to somebody stealing a NASA Space Shuttle IMO. And they didn't just drive it around for a bit and return it. They ripped it apart, took a look at the engine and pasted pictures all over the Internet.

This phone leaking is HUGE for Apple, and not in a good way. Now Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Nokia, etc., get a head start on reverse-engineering it as well as positioning their own products to be competitive.


It's very hard to put a dollar figure on the amount of money Apple will lose to this though because it depends on how well Microsoft, Google and friends take advantage of this bit of good fortune.

Originally Posted by Burninator

What if a Ford engineer drove a prototype Mustang to the bar, left the keys on the bar stool and left the bar. The guy at the bar takes the car, phones 1-800-Ford says he has a prototype Mustang and then sells it to Car and Driver Magazine. How is that any different than what happened?

The difference is that a parked car (running or not) and a space shuttle are clearly meant to be left unattended by people in parking lots or hangers for a period of time and then returned to. No one in their right mind would interpret a parked car outside a store as lost and therefore would obviously be intending to take possession from the rightful owner by themselves taking possession.

On the other hand, no one leaves a cell phone sitting around a bar unattended intentionally, planning on coming back to retrieve it. Something like that is clearly lost, and people routinely pick up lost items and attempt to return them to the owners, as this guy clearly did when he called Apple. And given that most people here doubted that the phone was a genuine Apple prototype until confirmed by Apple, I don’t know how everyone can now impute absolute knowledge as to the genuineness on this guy.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Should have compared it to somebody stealing a NASA Space Shuttle IMO. And they didn't just drive it around for a bit and return it. They ripped it apart, took a look at the engine and pasted pictures all over the Internet.

This phone leaking is HUGE for Apple, and not in a good way. Now Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Nokia, etc., get a head start on reverse-engineering it as well as positioning their own products to be competitive.


It's very hard to put a dollar figure on the amount of money Apple will lose to this though because it depends on how well Microsoft, Google and friends take advantage of this bit of good fortune.

Companies are responsible for protecting their own trade secrets. The best way to do that is not leave prototypes behind in a bar. The police should not be spending the public's money investigating the improper handling of a phone that was LOST.

If a NASA engineer got drunk and took the space shuttle out for a spin, only to abandon it outside a bar, then yeah, I don't think people who opened up the hood and took pictures should be charged with a crime.

[Pastiche]

Man that engineer is so fired.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The difference is that a parked car (running or not) and a space shuttle are clearly meant to be left unattended by people in parking lots or hangers for a period of time and then returned to. No one in their right mind would interpret a parked car outside a store as lost and therefore would obviously be intending to take possession from the rightful owner by themselves taking possession.

On the other hand, no one leaves a cell phone sitting around a bar unattended intentionally, planning on coming back to retrieve it. Something like that is clearly lost, and people routinely pick up lost items and attempt to return them to the owners, as this guy clearly did when he called Apple. And given that most people here doubted that the phone was a genuine Apple prototype until confirmed by Apple, I don’t know how everyone can now impute absolute knowledge as to the genuineness on this guy.

Because Gizmodo told us everything there is to know about Gray Powell but nothing about the guy that found it. If he was genuine, we would know more about him by now.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Companies are responsible for protecting their own trade secrets. The best way to do that is not leave prototypes behind in a bar. The police should not be spending the public's money investigating the improper handling of a phone that was LOST.

If a NASA engineer got drunk and took the space shuttle out for a spin, only to abandon it outside a bar, then yeah, I don't think people who opened up the hood and took pictures should be charged with a crime.

They are not investigating a phone that was lost they are investigating a lost phone that was SOLD.

Cripes.

No one has been charged, it's an investigation.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Companies are responsible for protecting their own trade secrets. The best way to do that is not leave prototypes behind in a bar. The police should not be spending the public's money investigating the improper handling of a phone that was LOST.

If a NASA engineer got drunk and took the space shuttle out for a spin, only to abandon it outside a bar, then yeah, I don't think people who opened up the hood and took pictures should be charged with a crime.

but if they bought a 'brand new! grandma driven (only on sundays), smoke free! space shuttle' from the shady terrorist looking guy they would be implicated because a reasonable person should know that the space shuttle was obviously stolen.

to add another analogy to the litany of analogies we have going on here - if you were to find a guy selling really cheap stereo equipment from the back of his van you would expect that they were stolen. the same concept applies.

the issue isn't that somebody stole it from the bar/lot, its that it was then repurchased by gizmodo. that's why engadget didn't buy it even though they apparently had first crack at it. and you can't defend gizmodo by saying they didn't know it was an iPhone because otherwise they would never have paid $5000+ for it.

it is a crime to purchase material that does not belong to the seller. tearing it apart and posting photos on the internet is stupid because (no $hit) it attracts unwanted (police) attention. its like rebellious teenagers making videos of their drunken shenanigans and posting them on youtube - you're gunna get caught.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Man that engineer is so fired.

Actually he hasn't been which is one thing that makes me believe that there is more to this story. Apple just fired a guy for showing Woz a 3g iPad but Gray Powell still has a job?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Because Gizmodo told us everything there is to know about Gray Powell but nothing about the guy that found it. If he was genuine, we would know more about him by now.

That makes absolutely no sense. I know that I'd have a strict confidentiality clause in the deal with Gizmodo if I was in that guys shoes regardless of whether or not I was genuine. Look at the heat that's come down on gizmodo, why would the source want to volunteer for a similar situation?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

but if they bought a 'brand new! grandma driven (only on sundays), smoke free! space shuttle' from the shady terrorist looking guy they would be implicated because a reasonable person should know that the space shuttle was obviously stolen.

to add another analogy to the litany of analogies we have going on here - if you were to find a guy selling really cheap stereo equipment from the back of his van you would expect that they were stolen. the same concept applies.

the issue isn't that somebody stole it from the bar/lot, its that it was then repurchased by gizmodo. that's why engadget didn't buy it even though they apparently had first crack at it. and you can't defend gizmodo by saying they didn't know it was an iPhone because otherwise they would never have paid $5000+ for it.

it is a crime to purchase material that does not belong to the seller. tearing it apart and posting photos on the internet is stupid because (no $hit) it attracts unwanted (police) attention. its like rebellious teenagers making videos of their drunken shenanigans and posting them on youtube - you're gunna get caught.

Sorry, but you're glossing over a major issue. If it wasn't initially stolen there can be no case for purchase of stolen property, it's factually impossible. So yes, the issue is whether or not someone stole it from a bar, among many other issues.

Not to mention the fact that it's not even certain that gizmodo purchased the phone, there are rumors that the payment was for exclusive rights to report on the phone.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Actually he hasn't been which is one thing that makes me believe that there is more to this story. Apple just fired a guy for showing Woz a 3g iPad but Gray Powell still has a job?

I think they will quietly dismiss him once this has all settled down. Provided of course that Mr. Powell was negligent. Apple took alot of bad press about suicide guy and likely will bide their time before giving him the boot. Eitherway for a company with mythical security protocols it does seem odd that some junior level guy is out and about with a prototype phone which is the bread and butter of Apple's entire business.

[Flames0910]

Sorry, but you're glossing over a major issue. If it wasn't initially stolen there can be no case for purchase of stolen property, it's factually impossible. So yes, the issue is whether or not someone stole it from a bar, among many other issues.

Not to mention the fact that it's not even certain that gizmodo purchased the phone, there are rumors that the payment was for exclusive rights to report on the phone.

This is why there is a police investigation...
As Barnes stated earlier, nobody has been charged yet.

[Pastiche]

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

to add another analogy to the litany of analogies we have going on here - if you were to find a guy selling really cheap stereo equipment from the back of his van you would expect that they were stolen. the same concept applies.

And you'd probably be wrong... http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/4/9/224439/1810

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

This is why there is a police investigation...
As Barnes stated earlier, nobody has been charged yet.

Uh yeah, that's pretty obvious. I was just pointing out that the aspect you indicated was unimportant is actually at the crux of the whole criminal case.