From: Chris Ridd on 20 Apr 2010 08:36 On 2010-04-20 12:30:21 +0100, Tim Streater said: > It was the "Broadsword to Danny Boy" line that made *me* chuckle. Yes, it was a nice reference to Where Eagles Dare. -- Chris
From: zoara on 20 Apr 2010 09:14
Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > On 19/04/2010 22:55, Richard Tobin wrote: > > In > > article<1jh7vk9.snkzmz1gjpgo6N%danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com>, > > Danny Thompson<danny(a)itshouldbe.harrietbarber.obvious.com> wrote: > >> There's an interesting rumours 'n' ethics summary from Andy Ihnatko > >> here: > > > > Given the lack of any news of the usual legal threats from Apple - > > which would presumably be fairly uncontestable if it's their > > property - > > my guess is that Apple "lost" it deliberately. > > Ah, but if Apple makes a legal threat then that confirms the phone as > their property which they may not want to do. They *have* confirmed it's their property now: http://j.mp/cYgYYz Note also Gizmodo's reply, in which they essentially confirm it was stolen (by saying "we didn't realise it was stolen when we bought it"). > Truth is often stranger than fiction and I suspect this is going to be > one of those cases. I'm finding the story itself to be more fascinating than the phone. There's a lot of conjecture as to whether this could be a setup by Apple, or whether Gizmodo are in deep legal trouble (based on Californian law definitions of "stolen"), and also about how, exactly, Gizmodo found themselves in possession of it a few days after Engadget posted photos (was there some kind of bidding war going on, with the initial photos as proof as to what was on offer?). And also, there are articles like Ihnatko's, which make some very interesting points. And daringfireball.net is keeping a close eye on things, too. -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |