Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G
wraith808:
If I leave something anywhere, and someone sells it, I would feel violated.-wraith808 (April 28, 2010, 07:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
I agree. But I think this is a little bit different.
For instance, if you lost something and the person who found it tried to return it to you--and you refused to take it back--would that change your opinion about them selling it?
-Deozaan (April 28, 2010, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is being used as a reasoning in a lot of posts in this thread... so reference? And even so- why call tech support? Why not call apple and ask for the person? Even after the phone was wiped, he knew the person's name... else why did it appear in the article?
Renegade:
1) Used iPhones go for around $60 or so, well under $100. Used iPhones on eBay
2) In addition to being used, the product wasn't even finished. What is the value of an phone that you know doesn't work properly? This should further devalue it.
3) There is no support for the product, so if there are any issues, it's basically a worthless chunk of plastic and metal. This again should further devalue it.
-Renegade (April 29, 2010, 03:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
The value here is the value to the owner, and to Apple this phone was very, very valuable! That it was bought goes a long way to showing it was also considered a valuable item to others too. Just because 'most people' wouldn't see the value in it doesn't inherently devalue the item.
-Eóin (April 29, 2010, 06:23 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on this point. I really don't think that it is up for debate.
Value in a legal sense cannot be determined by a single individual/agent/company. If it were, in any given lawsuit, people could value their time at astronomical amounts. However, this doesn't happen, and the courts do not recognize those sorts of claims.
Like I mentioned above, just because you value something, doesn't mean that it actually has that value in the broad sense of the term.
Here's another example:
My laptop is worth a very great deal to me. The value to me is at least $10,000 at the absolute minimum. However, if it were stolen, and I made an insurance claim for it, I most certainly would not get that amount for it. Just because I value it very highly doesn't give it that value in the real world.
For yet another opportunity to flog a dead horse (though perhaps a horse of a slightly different color)... Read virtually any agreement for any software or hardware you have and you will see that damages are almost invariably limited to either $5.00 or $50.00.
If I leave something anywhere, and someone sells it, I would feel violated.-wraith808 (April 28, 2010, 07:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
I agree. But I think this is a little bit different.
For instance, if you lost something and the person who found it tried to return it to you--and you refused to take it back--would that change your opinion about them selling it?
-Deozaan (April 28, 2010, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is being used as a reasoning in a lot of posts in this thread... so reference? And even so- why call tech support? Why not call apple and ask for the person? Even after the phone was wiped, he knew the person's name... else why did it appear in the article?
-wraith808 (April 29, 2010, 08:35 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure that he knew the person's name. All of this came out well after the fact. The articles had the benefit of hindsight. For the specific details, I have not seen anything in depth to support that he knew or did not know the name of the engineer that lost the phone. If anyone has seen that, it would be nice if they could post a link.
But to be honest, I seriously doubt that most people know how to get somebody's name out of a phone. Even if it wasn't wiped quickly, and he had time to check, I don't know that he would have been able to find the guys name.
This thread should erase anyone's doubt that finding a name in a phone could be, errrr, ummmm... "difficult": People are really (really, really) stupid (Muahahahahaha~! I just loved that! Absolutely wonderfully entertaining! :D )
Ultimately, I don't think that we really have enough details to determine some things.
Eóin:
I'm not referring to sentimental value. This phone was a very valuable commodity beyond just the sums of it's parts as it represents highly prised IP. You can't simply compare it to existing iPhones or try and judge it's worth based on something like a lack of support, as it's not in that sense this item holds it's value.
The value of this phone would be determined by three factors; first by how much R&D Apple invested into it, second the potential loss to Apples profits if similar devices were to hit the market earlier as a direct consequence of the prototype leaking, and third by just how much 3rd parties are willing to pay for it, in this case $5000.
Your dirty underwear may be a difficult product to buy, but it's value is based on demand and if no one wants to buy it then supply is irrelevant.
A precious artwork for example holds very real, legally enforced value even if to 90% of the world it is little more than dirty paper useful only for wiping ones ass.
wraith808:
Sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on this point. I really don't think that it is up for debate.
Value in a legal sense cannot be determined by a single individual/agent/company. If it were, in any given lawsuit, people could value their time at astronomical amounts. However, this doesn't happen, and the courts do not recognize those sorts of claims.
Like I mentioned above, just because you value something, doesn't mean that it actually has that value in the broad sense of the term.
-Renegade (April 29, 2010, 09:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
For a prototype iPhone that's fully workable and not akin to the used market at all? And has extra features that you won't find in any iPhone? I defy you to find any judge that would value that at less than $100.
If I leave something anywhere, and someone sells it, I would feel violated.-wraith808 (April 28, 2010, 07:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
I agree. But I think this is a little bit different.
For instance, if you lost something and the person who found it tried to return it to you--and you refused to take it back--would that change your opinion about them selling it?
-Deozaan (April 28, 2010, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is being used as a reasoning in a lot of posts in this thread... so reference? And even so- why call tech support? Why not call apple and ask for the person? Even after the phone was wiped, he knew the person's name... else why did it appear in the article?
-wraith808 (April 29, 2010, 08:35 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure that he knew the person's name. All of this came out well after the fact. The articles had the benefit of hindsight. For the specific details, I have not seen anything in depth to support that he knew or did not know the name of the engineer that lost the phone. If anyone has seen that, it would be nice if they could post a link.
But to be honest, I seriously doubt that most people know how to get somebody's name out of a phone. Even if it wasn't wiped quickly, and he had time to check, I don't know that he would have been able to find the guys name.
-Renegade (April 29, 2010, 09:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
From http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone
During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features, just two bar codes stuck on its back: 8800601pex1 and N90_DVT_GE4X_0493. Next to the volume keys there was another sticker: iPhone SWE-L200221. Apart from that, just six pages of applications. One of them was Facebook. And there, on the Facebook screen, was the Apple engineer, Gray Powell.
--- End quote ---
He knew. And from the same page, something about the fact that he did apparently call Apple about the phone- I guess I overlooked it. But yes, he definitely knew the person's name. And with that information, the fact that he called several numbers seems more disingenuous. I'd call their office and ask for the guy. I'm sure at some point you can call and get a person on the phone... and knowing his facebook page, he could have messaged the guy on facebook... seems like CYA to me.
UPDATE: An interesting analysis... and some more links
http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Business/20100428/10501799/The-Official-Verdict-In-The-STOLEN-iPhone-Case.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/19/gizmodo-paid-iphone-4g
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363168,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121
40hz:
Motivations and economic value aside, in the end it will all come down to whether or not the prosecutor's office believes they can make a case for theft. With elections coming up (and a big corporate campaign contributor in the loop), you can be sure the decision won't be based exclusively on its legal merits.
You can be prosecuted for taking something worth as little as a penny (or in some cases nothing other than sentimental value) if the state decides they want to make an issue out of it. An act of theft is theft. It's only in the definition of what constitutes an act of theft that it gets murky. In my home state, you can be charged with theft even if you didn't actually take something. The simple act of temporary concealment is considered enough.
Example: some dumb kid conceals a game cartridge he intends to shoplift. Maybe he loses his nerve or thinks twice about the risks - but ultimately he experiences remorse and decides not to swipe it. So he puts the cartridge back exactly where he found it and leaves. Store security watches the whole thing on camera and stops this kid once he exits the store, accuses him of shoplifting, and has the local police arrest him. Is it a bogus charge since he didn't actually take anything out of the store? Not as far as the law is concerned where I live.
In the end, I think the prosecutor's office will want to take the easy way out and not fight the journalist 'shield' argument since that would be a long expensive case. Especially once the ABA, Press Association, ACLU and EFF weighed in on it.
A case like that would likely end up before the Supreme Court before it was finished. And for something as fundamental as defining what constitutes journalism, it probably should since the constitutional implications would be enormous. And that would remain true no matter which way the decision went.
Expect Mr. Chen and Gizmodo to be offered some sort of misdemeanor 'plea bargain' where they have to pay a fine and get off with a slap on the wrist. Unless of course either they - or Apple - decide they want to take it all the way.
Since it's easier to squeeze an individual, I'm guessing Gizmodo will be left out of the dealing, and all the pressure will be put on Mr. Chen to cut a personal deal. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if he caved.
But even without criminal charges being brought against Gizmodo, Apple still has the opportunity to initiate civil action - but that's a discussion for another day.
8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version