The finder claiming to Gizmodo that he found it in March is all the prosecution needs, doesn't matter if Gizmodo thought it was Apple or knockoff. That told Giz that the finder couldn't have gone through the legal hoops to transfer legal ownership from the original owner to the finder, making the exchange of money illegal. Gizmodo said in the original articles that they only paid for access, but that's no different in the eyes of the law as buying it. The eyes of the jury are another matter, but most cases end before jury selection.
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.
Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eh? When he found the phone it was after midnight and he was in a bar, drunk, believing he had found an ordinary 3GS. He switched it on, saw the name Gray Powell in the Facebook app, and memorized it. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't switch to Sherlock Holmes mode in that state at that time of night and start trying to call Apple or any of the hundreds of Gray Powells in the area regarding a lost 3GS. I don't think Sherlock Holmes would try calling Apple after midnight either. I wouldn't call anyone after midnight unless someone died or I'm 100% sure that the person at the other end is awake and out partying or whatever.
When he woke up the next day he was more alert and started going about trying to return the phone, but by that time it had been remotely disabled so there was no chance of looking for internal numbers - the phone was stone dead. He did however notice that the phone looked weird because it looked like it had a case on despite being the same physical size as a 3G/3GS. Then he tinkered with it and the shell came off (it takes about 2 seconds, as shown in the Giz demo video), noticed the odd XX markings, and it dawned on him it may be some sort of prototype. Then he called several of Apple's numbers, ended up with support who dismissed him as a prankster/loon.
From that point on you can fault him for not taking it to the nearest police station, sure. He could also have tried calling XX number of people listed as "Gray Powell", but given that he knew by this point that he might have some sort of valuable/secret prototype on his hands it might not necessarily be the best idea, should the wrong Gray Powell respond "sure! I've lost a phone!"
But as for searching for clues like internal numbers, not possible due to the phone having been bricked.
It's nice to know that there are robots out there who will instantly do the smartest and most law-compliant thing at any given time and place, even in a bar past midnight. Myself, I usually get my heureka moments way after the opportunity occured. I guess I'm alone...
The phone was remotely disabled soon after it was lost, preventing them from calling numbers present (if any numbers were present). How do you call people, as you suggest, if the phone has been bricked by Apple? Please explain. The only option would be to call people at 2 AM and say "Hi, Im --------, do you know whose phone this is". I don't know about you, but I don't call strangers at 2 AM in the morning; I was not raised to be stupid and rude.
Also, its not a 'lame ass attempt'. He called the number Apple provides to contact them on their website. Was he suppose to call over an over, thereby harassing them? No. I think the only reason you are calling it lame is because, if true, it makes Apple the one at fault here. I just don't see how a company can REFUSE to take back an item and then later cry theft; Apple had a duty here to acknowledge the loss and provide the caller with instruction for its retune.
I hope his lawyer is really good at negotiating plea bargains in exchange for testimony. Painting Chen as the poster boy for crusading journalists is only going to make him a martyr, and the fun of that fades just as quickly as his notoriety will.
The finder could have done any number of things to properly deal with the situation.
He found a phone at a bar. It would be a reasonable expectation that the owner would come back to / contact the bar looking for the phone.
- leave the phone with the barkeeper
- take the phone and leave contact info with the barkeeper
- determine who lost the phone (Powell) and attempt to contact him
- in this specific case (prototype iPhone), turn it over to Apple directly
That some random call center flunky hadn't heard Powell's iPhone went missing is a pretty lame defense. It might be good enough if the finder had hung on to the phone until Apple came knocking on his door.
Selling what all parties realized was a prototype (trade secrets etc blah blah) for 5 grand is what elevates this to the next level.
That the phone has ultimately been returned is almost immaterial compared to the trade secrets that have been divulged by Gizmodo, for their financial gain and to Apple's detriment.
He found a phone at a bar. It would be a reasonable expectation that the owner would come back to / contact the bar looking for the phone.
- leave the phone with the barkeeper
- take the phone and leave contact info with the barkeeper
- determine who lost the phone (Powell) and attempt to contact him
- in this specific case (prototype iPhone), turn it over to Apple directly
That some random call center flunky hadn't heard Powell's iPhone went missing is a pretty lame defense. It might be good enough if the finder had hung on to the phone until Apple came knocking on his door.
Selling what all parties realized was a prototype (trade secrets etc blah blah) for 5 grand is what elevates this to the next level.
That the phone has ultimately been returned is almost immaterial compared to the trade secrets that have been divulged by Gizmodo, for their financial gain and to Apple's detriment.
I'm not sure where Chen would be in the overall investigation. More likely, the police are looking for a canary. Or, it could be that he was just at the receiving end. Person X made the "acquisition," and dropped it on the desk and said, "Open it up and tell me what you see. Don't worry, we're in good shape legally." Who was person X? Was he the person who "sold" it to Person Y at Gizmodo?
A prototype, particularly a late prototype, represents the crown jewels of no matter what company there is, not just Apple.
NOW do you wish you had just taken a photo (not illegal), returned the phone, and then sold the photos, (not illegal, but not as lucrative), Mr. Finder.
At the end of this, somebody or bodies will have been Steved.
A prototype, particularly a late prototype, represents the crown jewels of no matter what company there is, not just Apple.
NOW do you wish you had just taken a photo (not illegal), returned the phone, and then sold the photos, (not illegal, but not as lucrative), Mr. Finder.
At the end of this, somebody or bodies will have been Steved.
He tried to, and Apple blew him off. Its Apple fault for not telling their "call center flunkies" about the missing iPhone and to be on the lookout for calls on it. Apple failed here, its sad that people will not admit it.
There are no laws against paparazzi.
Gizmodo is just that.
Taking pictures is not illegal.
Its questionable if they where able to upload and reverser engineer the software, and simply looking at the insides of something does not necessarily mean theft of intellectual property (otherwise the US Govt would arrest thousands for taking photos of Area 51, etc).
The only item that they can be charged with is receiving stolen property, and it may be a hard case to prove because *intent*.
Theft with *intent* to keep is clear cut, but if there is intent to return to owner then some laws say it is not theft.
Either way, Chen will lose a pound of flesh.
If they thought it was a regular iphone or a knockoff when they blew him off, that isn't the same as refusing the prototype. You have to do certain things to get legal ownership over a lost item. That fell far short.
Yes, why not? You'd get somebody's attention very quickly.
But we know how little insight you have into the world by your icon.
Well, you can ask...
An intent that only was demonstrated once it seemed clear that some laws may have been broken.
The courts of the State of California do not enforce the laws as according to wikipedia. There is a specific California Penal Code statute involving the failure to return property, and defining this act as theft. Given the amount in question, the type of theft is grand larceny.
Does anyone else think there should just be a FAQ page listing all of the dispositive responses to each of the dozen or so justifications being advanced to insulate the finder and Gizmodo from criminal and civil liability? Then when someone joins the conversation after 2,000 posts fresh from reading the latest self-serving press release from Gizmodo, someone could just post, "FAQ #4!"
Yes, and it's the only story we have and the only thing we can go by when discussing hypotheticals about what should and shouldn't have been done given the situation.
If you think the story is pure fiction, why cherry pick parts of it and accept them as facts? I hear this all the time. "Gizmodo's story is bullcrap and besides, the fact that he was paid 5K for it is the smoking gun!" Um, yeah, except the part about 5K is also part of Gizmodo's story, you know, the one you dismissed as bullcrap?
Notice, first they seem to blame Apple for even notifying the police. Then they throw away the fact that they've talked to the person who "found" it. Did he "find" it, or pick a pocket? Did he know what he had? Why didn't he just turn it into the bar, if he didn't? Was he kind of planning to keep it?(The bar owner says the engineer was frantically calling him the next day.) Did he discover that it had a special case on it right away, or the next day, or when? And this was on March 18. Gizmodo says it got the phone about a month later. What happened in between? Did he sell it to a middle man? Who sold it to Gizmodo? Who bought it?
They didn't pay 5 grand for a lost 3GS, now, did they?
All this is why it needs an investigation.
It's been said a thousand times, but it bears repeating. Under California law, if you take possession of property that does not belong to you (remember that it's an active decision to take possession of mislaid or lost property, you always have the option of not picking it up), you are obligated to make a "reasonable attempt" to return it to the owner. Reasonable attempts in this case include the following
- Leaving the property with the bartender
- Leaving your contact information with the bartender
- Contacting the owner of the property, whose idenentity was known by the finder (according to Gizmodo)
- Turn it into the police
Calling the customer support line of the manufacturer of the property does not constitute a reasonable attempt to return it. Period. If anything, it makes the finder appear guilty of attempting to cover his ass while having no intention of actually returning the property.
If you still doubt this, try a simple thought experiment. You find a cell phone at a bar. If you're the type of person who might steal it, you'll have to pretend that in this case you honestly want to return it to the owner, since that is what is being asserted. What is your first instinct, honestly? Look again at the list of options above. Can you sincerely say that the action most likely to reunite the property with it's rightful owner is to call the manufacturer's customer support number? And would you not have thought of any of the actions I listed? And remember, you wouldn't be constrained to only one choice. For instance, even if you think it might be a good idea to call customer support, that would not prevent you from also leaving your contact information with the bartender.
If you still assert that calling customer support is, on its own, a reasonable way to attempt to return the phone, ask a few friends or family members what they would do if they were in this situation (and, again, actually wanted to return the phone). I guarantee you that none of them will say that they would call customer support and do nothing else. And if no one you know thinks that calling customer support in and of itself constitutes a "reasonable" attempt to return the phone, then in all likelihood a jury would not think so either.
To be clear, you guys are saying that if you or one of your friends or family members loses or temporarily mislays their cellphone at a bar, you think that someone else should be legally entitled to keep it as long as they call the manufacturer's customer support number. I hope that, at a minimum, you can understand why virtually no one agrees with you.
That's exactly why there is an investigation, isn't it?
Regarding the story, generally I believe the first person's account of what happened. In this case, I believe what Gizmodo said about what Gizmodo did. However, I wouldn't believe the founder's story. Gizmodo told the story as they were told, that does not mean they weren't lied to.
After all, a lot of things can be verified by witnesses, emails, and phone records. We will know in no time.
Return it to the bar, give it to the police or give your contact info to the bar. So simple a child could figure it out. In fact, try asking a child what they would do. I guarantee they won't come up with "call the manufacturer's customer support number".