5 ms·

I was very skeptical of the Engadget shots, but it's hard to argue with the depth of detail in this article. If it isn't the final design, I can't see it being

by gamble 17y ago

I was very skeptical of the Engadget shots, but it's hard to argue with the depth of detail in this article. If it isn't the final design, I can't see it being too different. OTOH, if the prototype is legit I wonder if Gizmodo will come to regret publishing the article. Even assuming the phone was 'found' and not stolen as Gruber implies in this morning's Daring Fireball post, the article seems like a pretty clear violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Gizmodo knew it was a secret prototype, who it belonged to, and that it had been lost or stolen. I'd love to hear a lawyer's opinion, though.

bmalicoat 17y ago
I think all Gruber meant was that Giz knew the seller didn't own it so it was akin to knowingly buying stolen merchandise. Plus one Engadget blogger (who I think is a lawyer) pointed out on twitter that CA requires the finder to remit the property to the police or original owner, who in this case was fairly obvious to the finder given that they knew gadget blogs would want it.
- gamble 17y ago
  I agree, paying for the 'lost' prototype seems rather dubious. The story about finding the phone in a bar may simply be cover to protect the finder's identity, but assuming it was true, who's to say that it was 'found' and not pick-pocketed? Whoever lost the phone has every incentive to claim it was stolen, and it would be hard to prove otherwise.
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  This is what Gizmodo wants. In order for Apple to get it back, they need to state it's their property. If Apple doesn't state this, it could easily be anybody's including a manufacturer in China who made a knock off.
  - tvon 17y ago
    I'm not sure that's a very wise tradeoff by Gizmodo. I think it's pretty clear this belongs to Apple, it's just not entirely clear if it's an accurate representation of the 4G iPhone. Even so, couldn't Apple drag their feet and not actually confirm it's theirs until two months from now when they unveil it, and then sue the pants off of Gizmodo?
    - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
      24 hours ago we all thought it was a fake, so it's not "clearly Apple's". Until Apple claims it, it's not theirs. Could Gizmodo call and say: "hey we think this is yours, if so, let us know, and well give it back" sure, they could and probably will. Yeah, Gizmodo might get sued, they know this. Gawker takes risks like this and it's worth it to them.
- cfinke 17y ago
  Here's the link to Nilay's tweet that you referenced: http://twitter.com/reckless/status/12440641435 http://twitter.com/reckless/status/12440641435 He was indeed previously a copyright attorney.

by gamble 17y ago

bmalicoat 17y ago

I think all Gruber meant was that Giz knew the seller didn't own it so it was akin to knowingly buying stolen merchandise. Plus one Engadget blogger (who I think is a lawyer) pointed out on twitter that CA requires the finder to remit the property to the police or original owner, who in this case was fairly obvious to the finder given that they knew gadget blogs would want it.

gamble 17y ago
I agree, paying for the 'lost' prototype seems rather dubious. The story about finding the phone in a bar may simply be cover to protect the finder's identity, but assuming it was true, who's to say that it was 'found' and not pick-pocketed? Whoever lost the phone has every incentive to claim it was stolen, and it would be hard to prove otherwise.
jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
This is what Gizmodo wants. In order for Apple to get it back, they need to state it's their property. If Apple doesn't state this, it could easily be anybody's including a manufacturer in China who made a knock off.
- tvon 17y ago
  I'm not sure that's a very wise tradeoff by Gizmodo. I think it's pretty clear this belongs to Apple, it's just not entirely clear if it's an accurate representation of the 4G iPhone. Even so, couldn't Apple drag their feet and not actually confirm it's theirs until two months from now when they unveil it, and then sue the pants off of Gizmodo?
  - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
    24 hours ago we all thought it was a fake, so it's not "clearly Apple's". Until Apple claims it, it's not theirs. Could Gizmodo call and say: "hey we think this is yours, if so, let us know, and well give it back" sure, they could and probably will. Yeah, Gizmodo might get sued, they know this. Gawker takes risks like this and it's worth it to them.
cfinke 17y ago
Here's the link to Nilay's tweet that you referenced: http://twitter.com/reckless/status/12440641435 http://twitter.com/reckless/status/12440641435 He was indeed previously a copyright attorney.