Steve Jobs IS the most brilliant man in the world.

I am no Apple fan. Really. I am the anti-Apple user. I do not want a smart phone, a virus free computer or 3 jiggabytes of music in a device small enough to implant in my ear. I am no Apple fan.

Steve Jobs is the most brilliant man in the world. How else can you explain the press the next gen iPhone is getting.

It is my belief that SJ sent a guy out to the bar that the Gizmondo editor frequents knowing the editor would bite on a $5000.00 offer to buy the phone. The loss of the phone elicits worldwide press, eventually going to the point where the Gizmondo editors house gets tossed by the Federales.

All the while nothing but "Next Gen iPod" is on the news.

If you think I am wrong... why didn't the Apple employee get fired? ... why wasn't there a simple GPS protocol used to recover the phone? ...why was it so conveniently remembered that it was left on a bar stool?

What is YOUR theory?

sounds like my theory is very similar to your theory.

yeah... "lost it" at the bar.....right..

I'll buy it IF Gizmodo gets the charges against them dropped. Otherwise they're (Apple) bumbling idiots like everyone else.

I think it was all very well orchestrated.

The cops raided the Gizmodo reporter's house. This apparently was a no-no as he is protected as a journalist under both state and federal law. Oops.

Link

I haven't been following this story but lemme get this straight... The cops raided this guy's house, on behest of Apple, to get back a "leaked" prototype that was left on a stool in a bar? Holy crap!

A guy I know has a pretty sweet new laptop that I want. Can I call the cops up and get them to raid his house for me?

This is sci-fi distopia E36 M3 here. Just... wow.

In reply to Jay:

actually they had the cops raid his house to recover photos of the iphone prototype taken by gizmodo.

the iphone prototype wasn't leaked, it was honestly lost at the bar. the guy that found it tried to give it back to apple, but they basically blew him off when he called apple support to give it back. Giz ended up buying it off the guy for 5k, dissected it, put it back together, and eventually returned it to apple once requested.

I say no on fake.
Replace the words "Apple" and "iPhone" in the story with "Honda" and "Disguised Prototype Car - with keys in it and running"
I think with those words you will have less outrage to the attempts to recover it.
There are many more controllable methods that Apple could use to get plenty of press about their product.

jrw1621 wrote: I say no on fake. Replace the words "Apple" and "iPhone" in the story with "Honda" and "Disguised Prototype Car - with keys in it and running" I think with those words you will have less outrage to the attempts to recover it.

But didn't the guy try to return it and he got blown off?

Apple is a big corporation.
In an attempt to return it, if the person spoken with did not know it was missing they would not be looking for it.
Potentially another faux paux by Apple which makes Apple not look so smart. As said, there are many more controllable ways that Apple can generate buzz to their product.

Bumboclot wrote: The cops raided the Gizmodo reporter's house. This apparently was a no-no as he is protected as a journalist under both state and federal law. Oops. Link

Receiving stolen goods, corporate espionage. I can think of at least 6 reasons why this is a perfectly clean search warrant.

wearymicrobe wrote:

Bumboclot wrote: The cops raided the Gizmodo reporter's house. This apparently was a no-no as he is protected as a journalist under both state and federal law. Oops. Link

Receiving stolen goods, corporate espionage. I can think of at least 6 reasons why this is a perfectly clean search warrant.

Except they weren't stolen. If someone drove a undisguised car prototype past your house and you took a picture and put it on the web could they confiscate your computer?

Apple forces news groups to play these games all the time. Gizmodo gets the scoop and Apple stocks go up.

By the way, IF I am right Apple got paid $5,000 to get worldwide publicity over this deal ;)

tuna55 wrote:

wearymicrobe wrote:

Bumboclot wrote: The cops raided the Gizmodo reporter's house. This apparently was a no-no as he is protected as a journalist under both state and federal law. Oops. Link

Receiving stolen goods, corporate espionage. I can think of at least 6 reasons why this is a perfectly clean search warrant.

Except they weren't stolen. If someone drove a undisguised car prototype past your house and you took a picture and put it on the web could they confiscate your computer?

There is a big difference, he bought the phone for more then any conceivable street value. He made no legal effort to return it, alert the police, let the bar hold on to it if anyone returns. If he had it out in public and someone took a picture of it then yes legal. The method of acquisition is highly suspect.

Buying it for 5K from a less then reputable source. Then not alerting Apple that they had it when it was clear that it was not a standard unit. Dissembling it and trying to get into the 4.0 software. Openly posting when they knew they had no right. Even their parent companies legal team told them not to do it.

To pour salt in the wound posting the engineers name when they knew outright what would happen to him. (I mean they had a article with woz getting someone fired over disclosure right next to this one).

They opened themselves up to this, this is not standing up for a source which grants them protection, and contesting the warrant on a night enter because thats when the guiy came home is going to get them laughed out of court.

wearymicrobe wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

wearymicrobe wrote:

Bumboclot wrote: The cops raided the Gizmodo reporter's house. This apparently was a no-no as he is protected as a journalist under both state and federal law. Oops. Link

Receiving stolen goods, corporate espionage. I can think of at least 6 reasons why this is a perfectly clean search warrant.

Except they weren't stolen. If someone drove a undisguised car prototype past your house and you took a picture and put it on the web could they confiscate your computer?

There is a big difference, he bought the phone for more then any conceivable street value. He made no legal effort to return it, alert the police, let the bar hold on to it if anyone returns. If he had it out in public and someone took a picture of it then yes legal. The method of acquisition is highly suspect. Buying it for 5K from a less then reputable source. Then not alerting Apple that they had it when it was clear that it was not a standard unit. Dissembling it and trying to get into the 4.0 software. Openly posting when they knew they had no right. Even their parent companies legal team told them not to do it. To pour salt in the wound posting the engineers name when they knew outright what would happen to him. (I mean they had a article with woz getting someone fired over disclosure right next to this one). They opened themselves up to this, this is not standing up for a source which grants them protection, and contesting the warrant on a night enter because thats when the guiy came home is going to get them laughed out of court.

I hear you, but I disagree in a big way. If it's just sitting there, regardless of what it is, it's up for grabs to a point. I do think it was good that they gave it back when requested, but I don't think they did anything wrong. I am not a lawyer, but isn't there often some law regarding possession of an object being pretty important?

I don't like it. Search and seizure over an iPhone? I would hope a citizen would be innocent until proven guilty...

Aw screw it. I've talked crap on legal threads before and been proven patently wrong. I'll wait for our resident lawyers to show up and let us know if this is illegal or not.

Legal or illegal depends on how much the attorney gets paid.

Honda prototype car left in parking garage running and keys in it...
End of day, garage closes, car is still there.
How do you knowingly think it would be right to sell the car for 10 times the price of a current Civic?

My example assumes that the street price of a current iPhone is $500 and this one was sold for $5,000

Yup I said it last week, it was a total setup by Jobs.

I think everybody's giving ol' Steven a little too much credit.

Here's part of the story: http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

Gray Powell, the poor engineer who Gizmodo stupidly ousted, was out drinking on his birthday and lost the thing. A drunk guy at the bar found it, and gave it to a different drunk guy at the bar, who took it home (read: theft). Apple did remotely brick the phone less than 24 hours after it was lost; it was also in a specially-designed case to disguise it as a 3GS, the current model. The iPhone's GPS software doesn't work in the leaked prototype, because it's running glitchy beta software, which is one reason they couldn't find it. And then the guy sells it to a tech site for $5,000 cash. Hrm.

To me, there are a few things wrong with this on Gizmodo's part:

1. Releasing the engineer's name and personal info - not to Apple, but the WORLD? Good one. That's just poor ethics.
2. Purchasing obviously stolen property, and for $5,000 cash. "We didn't even know it was real?" I call BS. Whether it was a prototype or not, they bought some poor guy's stolen phone for $5k - and receiving stolen property is a crime, as far as I know.
3. They then proceeded to take the whole thing apart. "Trade secrets," anyone? I'm guessing the iPhone 4.0 isn't going to take the world by storm now that every competitor knows exactly how the berkeleying thing is built. Apple probably has a legitimate case there; it's hard for any company to innovate when your new technology is ganked and spread out all over the internet.

I'd like an iPhone if Sprint was the carrier, but I quit drinking the Apple kool-aid sometime around the switch to Intel processors. I'm not attempting to sympathize with either side, but did Gizmodo really not see this coming? Apple and Gizmodo are both getting what they deserve; it's one poor Gray Powell who I feel really bad for. A lot of software engineers dream of working for Apple.

SlickDizzy wrote: 1. Releasing the engineer's name and personal info - not to Apple, but the WORLD? Good one. That's just poor ethics.

I couldn't disagree with this point more. By making his name public knowledge, they made sure that Apple couldn't quietly fire him over what happened. Now that his name is out there, he's on the rolodex of every competitor if Apple still decides to can him despite the PR hit they would take. He could probably have a job based solely on the notoriety at this point, and he isn't likely to have such a lapse again after all this. He was most likely a hell of a programmer if he was on that team in the first place, and now everyone in the industry knows his name. IMO this was the best possible outcome for him.

Josh wrote:

SlickDizzy wrote: 1. Releasing the engineer's name and personal info - not to Apple, but the WORLD? Good one. That's just poor ethics.

I couldn't disagree with this point more. By making his name public knowledge, they made sure that Apple couldn't quietly fire him over what happened. Now that his name is out there, he's on the rolodex of every competitor if Apple still decides to can him despite the PR hit they would take. He could probably have a job based solely on the notoriety at this point, and he isn't likely to have such a lapse again after all this. He was most likely a hell of a programmer if he was on that team in the first place, and now everyone in the industry knows his name. IMO this was the best possible outcome for him.

I didn't really think of it that way, you do have a good point there.