Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Circumstances Surrounding Lost Next Gen iPhone Detailed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Possibly because the guy that saw the phone was drunk, and wasn't thinking straight?
Apple will respond to this with something. You can't pay to gain access to a company's trade secrets without incurring some sort of legal trouble.
Yah, right!
I believe it might have been intentionally left in order to gather some feedback or draw attention to already boring thing.
Second thing is that the finder sold it. I think he should at least attempted to return to a guy who lost it. Looking around and waiting a few minutes does not entitles ownership. Besides selling it for obnoxious price also shows that finder never wanted to return it anyway.
I believe it might have been intentionally left in order to gather some feedback or draw attention to already boring thing.
Second thing is that the finder sold it. I think he should at least attempted to return to a guy who lost it. Looking around and waiting a few minutes does not entitles ownership. Besides selling it for obnoxious price also shows that finder never wanted to return it anyway.
According to this latest Gizmodo story, the person in possession of the phone received a "ticket number" from Apple in his alleged attempts to contact Apple directly about the lost property.
So Gizmodo is on record as reporting that this person's name and contact info are, in fact, on file somewhere within Apple?
So Gizmodo is on record as reporting that this person's name and contact info are, in fact, on file somewhere within Apple?
Not offhand, so feel free to ignore me. Maybe I'm even misremembering it.
Understandable, but a phone is different from the iPad in terms of use situations out and about. Particularly if it's using "new" chipsets from their own/PA Semi designs as opposed to updates of the current stuff, there is no choice but to put it through real-world use by more than six top execs. And if it's going to be announced first week of June for July sales, then it's soon getting to be too late to make significant changes before ramping up for production. Who knows?
No, No. No. I respectfully disagree with you. It might sound like intent to you, but that is the classic example of "theft by opportunity" which inherently lacks intent.
Assuming we are still discussing prosecutable angles of the California Penal Code, not touching upon Federal or Codes of Civil Procedures, etc.:
A State's attorney would have to PROVE the intent was to steal it, not that it was his intent to keep it. Two very different legal concepts. It would have to be proven that he intended to "steal" it (i.e.- knowingly deprive another of their property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of its use.). In this case, there is no evidence suggesting he intended to steal the device. There are only indications that he took it into his possession. There is neither evidence that he intended to steal it, nor that he intended to "permanently" deprive the owner of it.
In fact, if it could be proven that the Finder entered the bar with the intent to steal the device, you would also have the added charge of 459 PC, burglary, a felony. A burglary is defined as entering a 4-sided structure WITH THE INTENT to commit any felony or petty theft.
If a guy goes into 7-11 and leaves with a case of beer without paying for it or making an attempt to pay for it, it is still just petty theft unless you can PROVE he intended to steal it. That would include presenting sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable person to reach the conclusion the intent existed - such things as making no attempt to produce the item to a clerk, or intentionally bypassing the register, or not having sufficient money to purchase the item, etc. It is still not a slam-dunk, the circumstantial evidence must be presented in court before a tryer of fact.
The Finder's attempts to return the device (as reported: contacting Apple, asking around, waiting around) are defenses to the specific intent argument.
What we *can* likely prove is Gizmodo's intent to receive stolen property. They made NO reported attempt to return the device, however, I can't immediately recall a code section that would require Gizmodo to perform a due diligence to determine whether the Finder was lawfully in possession of it.
Sorta like when you buy a car through the newspaper ads. If you buy it from Scheister A for a ridiculously low price, and later you are pulled over by the police, they confiscate the car (i.e.- recover the stolen property), but the burden was not on you to exhaustively determine whether the car was stolen or not, even if it was priced wayyy below market. Likewise, I can see the argument that Gizmodo is not burdened to seek out whether the phone was stolen or not, but would expect to be out the $5,000 if the property is repatriated to the acutal owner.
Knock on the door and politely ask for it? Look up the address and the location, find a phone number, and call to ask for it back? Send a letter? There are no end of ways they could have easily and legally gotten this phone back over the past month. This is exactly the situation Find My iPhone on Mobile Me is designed for. The fact that apparently Apple didn't make even the slightest effort to retrieve the phone even though they knew it was missing from the beginning and knew how to contact it just makes this story very hard to take a face value. At the very least, they've blown an excellent marketing opportunity to show the value of Mobile Me, but instead have made themselves look like fools unable to use their own systems.
uhm.. lol you're funny.
Everybody calles it 4G right now, ONLY referring to the fourth generation.
Are you going to reply to every post and correct us all?
Good job buddy!! you're a sharp on
"The person who eventually ended up with the lost iPhone was sitting next to Powell. He was drinking with a friend too. He noticed Powell on the stool next to him but didn't think twice about him at the time. Not until Powell had already left the bar, and a random really drunk guywho'd been sitting on the other side of Powellreturned from the bathroom to his own stool.
The Random Really Drunk Guy pointed at the iPhone sitting on the stool, the precious prototype left by the young Apple engineer.
"Hey man, is that your iPhone?" asked Random Really Drunk Guy.
"Hmmm, what?" replied the person who ended up with the iPhone. "No, no, it isn't mine."
"Ooooh, I guess it's your friend's then," referring to a friend who at the time was in the bathroom. "Here, take it," said the Random Really Drunk Guy, handing it to him. "You don't want to lose it." After that, the Random Really Drunk Guy also left the bar."
Ladies and gentlemen THAT is the biggest set-up ever.
/end babble
The Random Really Drunk Guy pointed at the iPhone sitting on the stool, the precious prototype left by the young Apple engineer.
"Hey man, is that your iPhone?" asked Random Really Drunk Guy.
"Hmmm, what?" replied the person who ended up with the iPhone. "No, no, it isn't mine."
"Ooooh, I guess it's your friend's then," referring to a friend who at the time was in the bathroom. "Here, take it," said the Random Really Drunk Guy, handing it to him. "You don't want to lose it." After that, the Random Really Drunk Guy also left the bar."
Ladies and gentlemen THAT is the biggest set-up ever.
/end babble
Who cares how much Giz paid for the phone? How much do you think that NBS, The NYTimes or any other news organization pays for a story? Apple must be going crazy over how to spin this and the air has just been let out of that big announcement. All because some bonehead got absent minded after a couple high gravity brews.
In regards to people saying they just can't understand why the guy didn't turn the phone into the lost and found at the bar, consider this... Of course I don't know the guy and he may have good moral character. But lets not kid ourselves, how many people would go straight to the lost and found after finding an iPhone? For lots of people (sadly) I think it would go straight to the pocket.
Assuming he left it with the police department as a lost item, and then they returned it to him after whatever period of time is required in that area. Barring that, he stole it.
From: http://www.sacpd.org/faq/property/
Since he did not do anything of the things the law requires for someone to take ownsership of lost property in the state of California, you are wrong
Gizmodo seems to be fully aware of how their source obtained it and should have informed him of the proper way to deal with it instead of handing the thief $5,000 to look at what he stole.
We can hope they would recognize how tainted their source was. But you are probably right. Just because their are many journalists with questionable morals, does not make it right or legal.
How do you know anyone at Apple (other than the Employee in Question) knew about it? I am pretty sure a Software Engineer with a prototype (or more likely a software test phone) could figure out how to brick it remotely.
Hmmm, it all sounds to good to be true....
I'm sorry, but this is all to convenient, the whole thing stinks of a setup, either Apple want the new phone leaked to fuel the hype machine and get everyone talking about it and the iPad and whatever else, or this is an Apple red-herring, specifically designed to kept all the curtain twitchers off the trail. Or it's the real thing and some apple employee happened to be so unfortunate to happen to leave his proto-type priceless phone, which for some reason he was allowed to take off site, on a bar stool next to someone how happened to sell it to Gizmodo or whatever. Come on people, smell a rat yet...... it's market Research gone mad I tells yeah....
"Hey Steve, what do you think of the new iPhone design"
"Gee, I like it, I wonder what the punters will think of it, if only we didn't have such a strict policy on not pre- releasing products before their release date, we could do some research and be sure we were going down the right path"
"Steve, have you heard of guerilla market research"?
Well I can see it happening
Disclaimer - I do not work for Apple, and I like that new looking phone, if that's what it is......
I'm sorry, but this is all to convenient, the whole thing stinks of a setup, either Apple want the new phone leaked to fuel the hype machine and get everyone talking about it and the iPad and whatever else, or this is an Apple red-herring, specifically designed to kept all the curtain twitchers off the trail. Or it's the real thing and some apple employee happened to be so unfortunate to happen to leave his proto-type priceless phone, which for some reason he was allowed to take off site, on a bar stool next to someone how happened to sell it to Gizmodo or whatever. Come on people, smell a rat yet...... it's market Research gone mad I tells yeah....
"Hey Steve, what do you think of the new iPhone design"
"Gee, I like it, I wonder what the punters will think of it, if only we didn't have such a strict policy on not pre- releasing products before their release date, we could do some research and be sure we were going down the right path"
"Steve, have you heard of guerilla market research"?
Well I can see it happening
Disclaimer - I do not work for Apple, and I like that new looking phone, if that's what it is......
Some more from Gruber linking to an NYT article about this:
Miguel Helft and Nick Bilton, reporting for the NYT:
The person who found the phone peddled it to Gizmodo, which bought it for $5,000, Nick Denton, chief executive of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, said by instant message. […]
No sourcing from the Times to verify the phone was “found”, rather than obtained by some other means, other than Gizmodo’s own reporting.
By late in the day, reports began to surface on the Internet that Apple’s chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, had called Gizmodo to get the device back. Mr. Denton declined to comment, saying any conversation between Mr. Jobs and Gizmodo would most likely have been off the record.
What reports, where?
“We haven’t had any formal communication with Apple,” he said. Brian Lam, the editor in chief of Gizmodo, said his publication would “probably” return the device to Apple.
“Probably” as opposed to what? There are a mountain of legal issues I believe Gizmodo has already run afoul of, but under what grounds can they possibly not return this unit to Apple? It is Apple’s property and Gizmodo is in possession of it.
Miguel Helft and Nick Bilton, reporting for the NYT:
The person who found the phone peddled it to Gizmodo, which bought it for $5,000, Nick Denton, chief executive of Gawker Media, which owns Gizmodo, said by instant message. […]
No sourcing from the Times to verify the phone was “found”, rather than obtained by some other means, other than Gizmodo’s own reporting.
By late in the day, reports began to surface on the Internet that Apple’s chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, had called Gizmodo to get the device back. Mr. Denton declined to comment, saying any conversation between Mr. Jobs and Gizmodo would most likely have been off the record.
What reports, where?
“We haven’t had any formal communication with Apple,” he said. Brian Lam, the editor in chief of Gizmodo, said his publication would “probably” return the device to Apple.
“Probably” as opposed to what? There are a mountain of legal issues I believe Gizmodo has already run afoul of, but under what grounds can they possibly not return this unit to Apple? It is Apple’s property and Gizmodo is in possession of it.
There actually is, in so far as this case is concerned.
A reasonable person put in that same circumstance (finding a phone in a bar) would reasonably conclude that the phone belonged to someone. That would mean that the finder lacks title to the phone, because we do not live in the world of "finders keepers."
Since the finder lacks title, he cannot sell it or convert it (that is, make it his own). The only thing he can legally do is make a reasonable attempt to get it back to its owner. He could have given it to the barkeep or perhaps dropped it off at an AT&T store.
If it was your phone, you'd hope for nothing less.
Anyone else think that Gizmodo acted quite unethically here? Actually, it's beyond that; receiving stolen property is a criminal offense.
I read Gizmodo but I may have to reconsider after these shenanigans. Time for Apple to sue.
I read Gizmodo but I may have to reconsider after these shenanigans. Time for Apple to sue.
This is a B.S cover story on Gizmodo's part. There isn't ANYBODY that wouldn't have noticed immediately that this wasn't a typical iPhone. More to the point, how drunk do you have to be to leave a prototype iPhone laying around.
There's much more to this story, and I would venture that Gizmodo is going to be retracting some of this B.S.