Topic: Iphone

[BranDonk Kong]

There are plenty of reasons to put Android on an iPhone. They'll probably have a completely function version before too long, since as far as Android is concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing this. Since it's open source, Android is on tons of phones that run Windows Mobile.

[NWR_insanolord]

After attempting to play a game on my iPhone while downloading and installing updates in the background, I have to say that I concur with Apple's decision not to enable multitasking on the 3G model.

[nickmitch]

Gizmodo Editor get all his crap taken over iPhone leak. Details.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Gizmodo Editor get all his crap taken over iPhone leak. Details.

I guess that removes all doubt about whether it was real, fake or staged.

[nickmitch]

Yeah, the weird part is Apple sent a letter asking for it back, and apparently Gizmodo replied with a yes (according to Giz). So, this is especially shocking news.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Once the wheels are in motions, sometimes it's hard to apply the brakes.

Aand what I mean is Apple may have already taken action before Gizmodo replied or even before reaching out to contact Gizmodo in the first place.

[nickmitch]

Yeah, that's true.  Apple probably lost their **** once they realized the unit had gone missing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

What will be real funny will be the follow up story now that all the computers are in custody.

"Gizmodo Editor arrested on charges of child pornography!"

[D_Average]

I'd be surprised if Apple takes them all the way to court.  Its bad PR as the many in the public already view them as pretentious di$$s with overpriced hardware that constantly breaks.  I've never had an Apple product go more than a year without breaking.  Oh well.  I'll still buy the next iphone.

[nickmitch]

Funny, I haven't had an Apple product got for a year without me dropping it.

[TJ Spyke]

I'd be surprised if Apple takes them all the way to court.

Why? Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen merchandise. That is a crime. Someone at Gizmodo could be arrested and the company could be sued, and Apple would be victorious in both because Gizmodo was stupid enough to brag about it (this is like a criminal taping their crime and posting it to YouTube). At the very least I expect Gizmodo to pay millions of dollars to Apple.

[ShyGuy]

Gizmodo had no evidence that the item was stolen and returned the stolen item when requested to do so. They had no license agreements or contracts with Apple preventing them from releasing the information they found.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see any grounds for a search and seizure warrant. Apple just bought a judge.

[D_Average]

Gizmodo had no evidence that the item was stolen and returned the stolen item when requested to do so. They had no license agreements or contracts with Apple preventing them from releasing the information they found.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see any grounds for a search and seizure warrant. Apple just bought a judge.

THIS

[TJ Spyke]

Gizmodo had no evidence that the item was stolen and returned the stolen item when requested to do so. They had no license agreements or contracts with Apple preventing them from releasing the information they found.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see any grounds for a search and seizure warrant. Apple just bought a judge.

Gizmodo posted in their original article that they bought it from someone who "found" it in a bathroom. Considering that no Apple tester would have the legal authority to sell it, it's pretty clear to me that even a lawyer who barely passed the bar would be able to get a warrant when Gizmodo admitted the incident on their site. Seems pretty open and shut to me. Apple MAY be lenient though since Gizmodo has cooperated with them and the police, but Gizmodo clearly is in the wrong and could be screwed if Apple wants to use their legal rights.

[ShyGuy]

So if I found a phone in a public restroom and took pictures of it and posted it on my employers blog, then the original owners contacted me and asked for their phone back and I said yes, several days later a judge could issue a search warrant to seize my personal computers?

Bull.

[Arbok]

So if I found a phone in a public restroom and took pictures of it and posted it on my employers blog, then the original owners contacted me and asked for their phone back and I said yes, several days later a judge could issue a search warrant to seize my personal computers?

Bull.

Living in CA and in the same complex as a sheriff's office, you are missing the key fact that it was noted as being lost and is worth more than $100, which means that the following law applies:

"If the true owner is not known and the [lost] item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1.  The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions."

Clearly the finder did not do the following, although I would assume the law would be more interested in the original person who found it rather than the one who bought it (the aspect that they knew it was lost was a dumb move on their part to publicly tout that fact).

[ShyGuy]

So charge the original person with theft and charge the gizmodo editor with possession of stolen goods. I don't see how either gets you a warrant (not to mention seizing a journalists equipment without a subpoena) especially when Apple, the original owner of the goods, knew where there stolen item was, and contacted Gizmodo, the possessor of said stolen item, and Gizmodo agreed to return it.

[BranDonk Kong]

Seeing as this phone is not available for purchase, and it's not a retail product, who's to say that it's worth over $100?

[nickmitch]

Total of parts and estimated labor.

[Arbok]

Total of parts and estimated labor.

Not to mention the person turned around and sold it for $5,000... that leaves little doubt that not only was it worth over $100, but that the person who found it was aware of that fact as well.

[BranDonk Kong]

Still though, there has not been a price set for said phone.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Hope all you AT&T iPhone users have been paying attention to your bill
http://www.betanews.com/article/ATT-sued-over-iPhone-data-overbilling/1296585365

A California man has sued AT&T for over billing him on data charges for his iPhone, a move that could raise new questions on the carrier's billing practices. Patrick Hendricks claims that the carrier was charging him for usage even when he wasn't using any.

A test iPhone account found that even with all apps closed, push and location services disabled, and the device unused, AT&T billed the account for over 2,292KB of usage over a period of ten days. "This is like the rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station," Hendricks' suit continues.

It might not affect you, but if this case is legit, it could affect AT&T in a big way.

[nickmitch]

****, I'm still on an unlimited family plan, so I wouldn't they'd even be able to hit us with overages, but I'll still check.