Come take a look at the next iPhone

[Hauldren Collider]

Got news for them. You can't criminally charge people for things that aren't crimes.

[giblets]

I'm kind of surprised that they wouldn't be happy because they got a chance to see it. I guess I don't know Mac fanboys very well.

[Asher]

The Apple employee that left the phone unattended needs some attention. Gizmodo and their accomplice need to be charged.

It is one thing to look at an abandoned object and take pictures of it before turning it in. It is another to pay a bribe and then take the object apart. Apple puts a lot of resources into building quality products and neither they nor their employees deserve to be penalized for a simple oversite.

And I happen to think at least one of them now is a criminal a-hole. I think what the s/w engineer did was sloppy and regrettable. However, if it's really true that Gizmodo paid the finder $10K, I think they're both criminals and I hope the DA agrees. No fraud involved here. There was a buyer and seller in property that did not belong to them, and the motive was profit. I don't see any significant free speech issue. And I, for one, don't expect Apple to be shy about talking to the prosecutor's office about this. I can't predict how it'll be handled, but I certainly am interested to find out.

On the other hand, I am not interested in visiting Gizmodo's web site. Apple has every right to share their secret exactly when they want to, in the fashion they want to do it. Gizmodo's site is filthy and I'm staying away!

Others are hoping the guy is fired. Classy.

Others have postulated that the guy must have stolen the iPhone, because Apple wouldn't let some "low level engineer" take it off campus.

Love the Mac fanboys. So awesome.

[Asher]

I'm kind of surprised that they wouldn't be happy because they got a chance to see it. I guess I don't know Mac fanboys very well.

Apparently.

The problem isn't that they got to see it early, it's that they see it as an offense to Apple. Apple deserves better. They try very hard. Jobs is Jesus. How dare anyone counter their wishes.

I'm shocked no one yet has called for the death penalty for this guy.

[Asher]

Others discuss how this is all part of the master plan by Apple, and taking swipes at Microsoft at the same time. These guys are pro.

This is Apple's way of creating hype months in advance to stop people from buying competing smart phones. Microsoft would do this kind of tactic whether they really had a product or not hence the term vaporware. Apple at least really has a product in the wings. I agree with other that Apple purposely let this one loose. What a lame excuse in losing one's phone. If you had said G4 iPhone that could cost you your job if you lost it that you better believe that thing wouldn't leave your body or your thoughts.

[giblets]

I don't think the "master plan" theory is ridiculous. If people pan the new Iphone, Apple can just say it's a fake.

[Hauldren Collider]

Others discuss how this is all part of the master plan by Apple, and taking swipes at Microsoft at the same time. These guys are pro.

Just in case I wasn't totally sure before, I'm now 100% confident that humanity is ****ed.

[Asher]

I don't think the "master plan" theory is ridiculous. If people pan the new Iphone, Apple can just say it's a fake.

If they pan it, they've no time to fix it. Production must have already started for the June launch.

[Solomwi]

And I happen to think at least one of them now is a criminal a-hole. I think what the s/w engineer did was sloppy and regrettable. However, if it's really true that Gizmodo paid the finder $10K, I think they're both criminals and I hope the DA agrees. No fraud involved here. There was a buyer and seller in property that did not belong to them, and the motive was profit. I don't see any significant free speech issue. And I, for one, don't expect Apple to be shy about talking to the prosecutor's office about this. I can't predict how it'll be handled, but I certainly am interested to find out.

On the other hand, I am not interested in visiting Gizmodo's web site. Apple has every right to share their secret exactly when they want to, in the fashion they want to do it. Gizmodo's site is filthy and I'm staying away!

That guy's legal analysis is breath-taking. I especially love the "motive was profit" part. What a ****ing douche.

[Zevico]

Apple has repeatedly sued sites just for leaking information ahead of Apple's embargos, even if these people never signed NDAs and just passed on information they've heard (see ThinkSecret).

Gizmodo is owned by Gawker Media, which would be a bad company to get on its bad side, though.

NDA's aren't the be all end all of confidentiality. I could publish the contents of your diary and be sued for breaching confidentiality. Legally, as long as Apple treats info about the Ipod as secret and as long as it actually was secret, anyone who discloses that info, knowing that apple treats it as secret, is pretty much f***ed. Damages, accounts of profits, injunctions. It goes down bad. And guess what Apple is known for among the tech industry? Secrecy. They're being very careful about their legal rights, presumably as part of their "we only reveal things once in a millenia" marketing strategy.

Incidentally the same applies in principle to anything society chooses to characterise as worth protecting due to its secrecy. For example, if someone decided to break into Wiglaf's house, steal his private diary and publish his musings on pink ponies, Wiglaf could sue and obtain order from the court to stop the publication. If he's too late and publication occurred, he could conceivably get an account of profits too. Even "emotional distress" damages from the humiliation of having his pony fetish exposed [at least in victoria--for an interesting read see giller v procopets on austlii.ed.au]

[Wiglaf]

Others are hoping the guy is fired. Classy.

Others have postulated that the guy must have stolen the iPhone, because Apple wouldn't let some "low level engineer" take it off campus.

ASHER FAIL Obviously he should be fired. And another ASHER FAIL maybe this comes as a surprise to you but apple is secretive and would not let this douche take the prototype to a bar.

[giblets]

For example, if someone decided to break into Wiglaf's house, steal his private diary and publish his musings on pink ponies, Wiglaf could sue and obtain order from the court to stop the publication. If he's too late and publication occurred, he could conceivably get an account of profits too. Even "emotional distress" damages from the humiliation of having his pony fetish exposed [at least in victoria--for an interesting read see giller v procopets on austlii.ed.au]

What if he left his diary in a bar? Just out of curiosity.

[Asher]

What if he left his diary in a bar? Just out of curiosity.

Then it's a completely different case...and he should know that.

The guy left the phone in a public place. Secret, no more.

Open and shut.

[Zevico]

Then it's a completely different case...and he should know that.

The guy left the phone in a public place. Secret, no more.

Open and shut.

That's what the defendant would argue. It depends on who picks it up and how much they know about apple. A guy who knows how apple is about confidentiality and recognises this as a new ipod is f***ed if he says a word [provided Apple can prove he knew about its policies of course]. But the average consumer who's never heard of apple's reputation for confidentiality, can post "omg look at all the new features on this Ipod I found, I never saw these before they're so shiny" on his blog, is off scot free. Still, Apple might not know if the consumer is aware of its policies and/or suspect him in any case and hit him with a lawsuit anyway. They could win if the consumer's story of "I never knew about apple's policies" was disbelieved at trial.

[Asher]

That is an extremely bizarre interpretation of law.

It doesn't matter if Apple wanted it to be secret. They left the 'secret' device in a public place. Secret, no more, no matter what their intentions were.