Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What are the chances that Apple gave the iPhone 4 to Gizmodo?

Ibjr said:
There are not enough facts for a judge or a lawyer to make a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Never said there were. I was responding to his comment of "opinion and knowledge".

Truth is, we are all just stating our opinions. Some of us more educated in some areas than others, but I'm guessing not a single person here is an expert in this area of law.

For future reference, preface all my posts with "In my opinion" and stop geting all worked up. Cool?
 
I have to go with stolen by somebody and then sold to gizmodo.

Lost would not happen and apple leaking it on purpose is also unlikely
 
Geckotek said:
Never said there were. I was responding to his comment of "opinion and knowledge".

Truth is, we are all just stating our opinions. Some of us more educated in some areas than others, but I'm guessing not a single person here is an expert in this area of law.

For future reference, preface all my posts with "In my opinion" and stop geting all worked up. Cool?
Click to expand...

The only lawyer we used to have (that I know of and not a demi) was so harassed in these forums after his first post complaining about his treatment in an Apple store that he never came back.

Edit: I had to search for a bit:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/746836/
 
G4R2 said:
There's no doubt that you have a lot of opinion. But as has been observed by others if not myself you have absolutely no supporting facts. Maybe this speaks to the law you're experienced in. I'm thinking Judge Judy?

You have failed to notice a lot of things, mostly the legal concepts that have riddled many of the above posts correcting your misconceptions.

I wouldn't deny anyone their opinion, particularly on an internet forum, but opinion isn't a rebuttal to a fact.
Click to expand...

I have not failed to notice anything. What I have done is point out that most of the arguments here have been one sided. There has only been presentation of fact by one person. The rest of you are attacking me with no facts to back up your argument.

And now you have decided to start with personal attacks? Classy. Very classy.
 
-aggie- said:
The only lawyer we used to have (that I know of and not a demi) was so harassed in these forums after his first post complaining about his treatment in an Apple store that he never came back.

Edit: I had to search for a bit:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/746836/
Click to expand...

There are lawyers or law students on this board but they probably just want to avoid an aneurysm (they have enough health problems) so they try to avoid engaging in pointless debates where technical concepts of law are refuted by baseless opinion.

Geckotek said:
I have not failed to notice anything. What I have done is point out that most of the arguments here have been one sided. There has only been presentation of fact by one person. The rest of you are attacking me with no facts to back up your argument.

And now you have decided to start with personal attacks? Classy. Very classy.
Click to expand...

Geckotek, you lost when you relied on a colloquial definition for a legal debate. It does not work that way.
 
Here, I'll post some fact, a court finding on a somewhat similar case.

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in Oregon ex rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal that a state trade secret law that restricted printing or writing about an alleged trade secret was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court found that a trial court order enforcing this provision was also an unconstitutional prior restraint. The plaintiff's newsletter, Sporting Goods Intelligence, had reported on design changes planned for shoes sold by Adidas America. The Court found that publication of lawfully obtained information by the newsletter could not be restricted by statute.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Literature-writing/High-court-rules-trade-secret-law-unconstitutional-judges-order-using-law-to-restrain-publication-vo.html#ixzz0laJWCpoU"

The question is, was the phone lawfully obtained. When Apple asks for it back and the article is removed, we'll know for sure they were able to reasonably prove that it wasn't. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong on that key point. As someone stated earlier...Time will tell.



Edit: Another article backing up what I've been saying all along. Journalists are protected. Unless Apple can prove that the source of the information was illegally obtained, they don't have a case and Gizmodo can publish. But of course as others have stated, A) we don't have all the facts so can't truly know and B) this is obviosly a very contentious area and if there were a lawsuit it would probably be a good fight on both sides or more likely end in a settlement.

Either way, as I've said all along....there are certain protections afforded to the press under the constitution. This is not flat out a case of corporate espionage. I'll try to refrain from responding to the personal attacks I'm sure will follow this post. I hope you guys are happy in how superior you are.

http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=1206&edition=36
 
Geckotek said:
Here, I'll post some fact, a court finding on a somewhat similar case.

"The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in Oregon ex rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal that a state trade secret law that restricted printing or writing about an alleged trade secret was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court found that a trial court order enforcing this provision was also an unconstitutional prior restraint. The plaintiff's newsletter, Sporting Goods Intelligence, had reported on design changes planned for shoes sold by Adidas America. The Court found that publication of lawfully obtained information by the newsletter could not be restricted by statute.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Literature-writing/High-court-rules-trade-secret-law-unconstitutional-judges-order-using-law-to-restrain-publication-vo.html#ixzz0laJWCpoU"

The question is, was the phone lawfully obtained. When Apple asks for it back and the article is removed, we'll know for sure they were able to reasonably prove that it wasn't. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong on that key point. As someone stated earlier...Time will tell.
Click to expand...


No. No. No. That is a case about prior restrain--the part you quoted even mentioned it! That just prevents a paper from stopping the printing before it happens. That has been long established even in matters of national security. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 444 F.2d 544 (1971).

That just means Apple couldn't stop Gizmodo from posting it which is irrelevant because it has already been published.

Please read what you quote before you quote it.
 
Geckotek said:
It's not that hard. "No judgement" = no legal finding by a court
I personally read that as Apple had more money but not enough legal standing. It wasn't open/shut for either side.
Click to expand...

1) The student was repped by the EFF which would have loved to make this a test case, if it could.

2) He was a student so Apple couldn't obtain much in damages--they would just bankrupt the kid. That would be bad press. Instead, the settlement shut down one of the prominent Mac Rumor sites.

3) Legal standing does not mean what you think it means. Standing is a procedural, not a substantive, issue. If Apple had no standing (which would have been impossible given the facts), EFF could have dismissed the lawsuit with one easy motion to dismiss.
 
oh my ****ing god people this iPhone is fugly, what the hell Apple, stick with the 3GS design.... or make this damn phone i would stab the nearest child to get it - http://www.iphone-ticker.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/iphone4gohne.jpg - please do not release this brick of plastic/cheap metal ****... i know you can't use the iPad design... but seriously whoever designed this and conveniently left it around or whatever needs to go to a Microsoft Company of some sort and design cheap ****** products for them...
 
skate71290 said:
oh my ****ing god people this iPhone is fugly, what the hell Apple, stick with the 3GS design.... or make this damn phone i would stab the nearest child to get it - http://www.iphone-ticker.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/iphone4gohne.jpg - please do not release this brick of plastic/cheap metal ****... i know you can't use the iPad design... but seriously whoever designed this and conveniently left it around or whatever needs to go to a Microsoft Company of some sort and design cheap ****** products for them...
Click to expand...

Tell us how you really feel. :p
 
definitive said:
(provided that it is indeed the real iphone 4)

The whole story about a person finding it at a bar seems fishy, and days after it Gizmodo has hands-on videos and photos of the disassembled unit. Again, if it really is the next iPhone, then Apple leaking it on purpose makes more sense than someone losing it at a bar. Reason: to generate buzz, or to test out people's reaction to trying something new, so in case the general public doesn't like it, they can release something more traditional looking.
Click to expand...

None, I assume they just happened to pay good money for it to whoever found it.

skate71290 said:
oh my ****ing god people this iPhone is fugly, what the hell Apple, stick with the 3GS design.... or make this damn phone i would stab the nearest child to get it - http://www.iphone-ticker.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/iphone4gohne.jpg - please do not release this brick of plastic/cheap metal ****... i know you can't use the iPad design... but seriously whoever designed this and conveniently left it around or whatever needs to go to a Microsoft Company of some sort and design cheap ****** products for them...
Click to expand...

Please go on, your inner feelings are great for this blog.
 
Trial balloon

If you were Apple and were considering making a big change to the design of one of the most popular phones ever, can you think of a better way to run up a trial balloon to see what popular opinion was of the new design changes?
 
well if apple gave it to gizmoto to show then it would technically be false advertising if that wasn't the final product. idk if im right but there would be some legal mumbo jumbo if this was true. im just speculating
 
skate71290 said:
oh my ****ing god people this iPhone is fugly, what the hell Apple, stick with the 3GS design.... or make this damn phone i would stab the nearest child to get it - http://www.iphone-ticker.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/iphone4gohne.jpg - please do not release this brick of plastic/cheap metal ****... i know you can't use the iPad design... but seriously whoever designed this and conveniently left it around or whatever needs to go to a Microsoft Company of some sort and design cheap ****** products for them...
Click to expand...

That's probably the worst looking mock-up I've seen floating around here. My vote is for the leaked version.
 
And dont forget that Gizmodo is one of Steve's fav. sites that he checks, so he prolly gave it to them to leak it on purpose:)anything is possible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back