Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests

[PracticalMac]

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

1. Leaving the property with the bartender
2. Leaving your contact information with the bartender
3. Contacting the owner of the property, whose idenentity was known by the finder (according to Gizmodo)
4. Turn it into the police

Thanks for explanation (you and cmaier)
Good points.

I hope that, at a minimum, you can understand why virtually no one agrees with you.

I never said it was *not* stolen, and I never argued against it being stolen, and by what you said of CA law, it is legally stolen, so Chen could be convicted. I am saying the situation is not cut-and-dried for a criminal trail, and a jury could be convinced that becuase Chen returned it without pressure makes him "innocent".

Snowmoon pointed out:
California Penal code 499c for theft of trade secrets. Even if the intent was to return the device copying, leaking, publishing the trade secret is an immediate violation.

That is something that the DA may easily convict with.

 

[BertyBoy]

by the engineer and exterior lawyers of Apple's (or however it was worded)

Yep, that's exactly how it was worded.

Assuming that there's been no chinese whispers i the story reaching MacRumors, can we ascertain why the Apple Engineer is involved at all in reporting the theft to the DA ?
(Not a trick question waiting fo you to say "well, he's the one that LOST it").
The phone belongs to Apple.

I'm suggesting that he's using the Apple external lawyers to instigate the alleged theft of something that was his. We can debate the benefits and pitfalls of using Apple-appointed lawyers to approach the DA later.

 

[dejo]

...and a jury could be convinced that becuase Chen returned it without pressure makes him "innocent".

Without pressure? A letter from Apple's General Counsel is not pressure?

 

[Anuba]

That's interesting. We tend to classify crimes involving the misappropriation of tangible property on two axes: the manner in which the goods were alienated from the owner, and the value of the goods. On that first axis our several states have all sorts of charming terms--"theft by taking", "theft by deception", "larceny by trick", "theft by shoplifting", "embezzlement" and then, of course, "burglary", "robbery", etc.

Ah, interesting concept, our system doesn't break it down that way.
We have a group of crimes called "tillgreppsbrott" (misappropriation crimes), and in this group there's stuff like stöld (theft, or etymologically speaking "stealth" if you were to imagine that stealth was the action of stealing), snatteri (shoplifting), inbrott ("in-break", i.e. burglary), rån (robbery) etc.

We then may add "grov" (pronounced like groove) in front of the classification (grov means coarse, thick, heavy) to denote a higher level of seriousness – I suppose you'd translate it to "grand". And then there's also "ringa" (petty) for some classifications.

This goes for crimes outside the misappropriation group as well, like "grov våldtäkt" (um... 'grand rape'?), "grov misshandel" ('grand physical abuse'?) and grovt rattfylleri ('grand DUI', or literally 'heavy steering wheel drunkenness'). So most classifications have two or three steps, with exceptions of course – there's only "mord" (murder), no "grovt mord" (extra heavy murder), naturally, and there's no "ringa våldtäkt" (petty rape), only regular and "grov".

In California, it seems that the legislature thought that grabbing someone's phone in a public place while his back was turned was no different, in terms of maximum punishment for the offense, from grabbing a phone that had been misplaced or lost.

Yeah, it's the same in Sweden – both have the same maximum penalty, but it's nice to have terminology that tells a bit more story. When I hear "thief" I'm picturing a thug who stole his 38th phone for the month, not grandma Helga, 87 who found a wallet but didn't bend over backwards to return it.

From your background I can certainly understand that the word "theft" conjures up an image that is inconsistent with someone simply finding a lost object and failing to exert legally adequate effort to return it. It occurred to me that the legislator who decided to use the word "theft" wanted to accentuate the seriousness of an act that some of the morally challenged among us might not otherwise appreciate.

Yeah, I'm not saying one is necessarily less serious than the other, so the legislator had a point there. But it doesn't give any clues about premeditation/intent/malice which is half the story in my book, it's sort of like slapping manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, assisted suicide and murder together and simply calling it "killing".

 

[Cartaphilus]

right, that's why I was trying to come up with a criminal equivalent. Of course, we're talking about a body of law that differentiated battery from trespass on the case, so it doesn't have to make any sense.

Any country with meatballs can't be all bad. What troubles me about Sweden is the large vampire population.

Ah, trespass on the case, I remember it well. Actually, I think we'd be talking about Detenue as the closest to what Arran was mentioning. Or maybe that was the name of the writ. I think I may have a copy of one in the box with my powdered wig and that bag of soil from Göteborg.

 

[tingly]

I'm suggesting that he's using the Apple external lawyers to instigate the alleged theft of something that was his. We can debate the benefits and pitfalls of using Apple-appointed lawyers to approach the DA later.

It may have been Apple lawyers using him. Back in March, "No, don't report it! We don't need people scrambling to find it and put it on a website!" Then, "OK, now report it! Need to get these guys convicted!"

Gizmodo requested the letter from Apple Counsel that asked for the return of the phone. Must have been legal advise to do that, or just a way to drag out the story one article further.

 

[doktordoris]

Gizmodo should be investigated.

Being shielded because they are "journalists" Is a joke.

If Gizmodo had found evidence showing that Apple was withholding information that the iPhone causes testicular cancer etc, then fine.

But this was just about Gizmiodo wanting to be in the lime-light and make some cash.

No doubt Gizmodo have cost Apple a lot of cash.


Throw the book at Jason Chen is what I say.

Are you taking the piss?
How can oodles of dollars worth of free iPhone advertisement possibly cost Apple?

I fail to se why apple cult members are giving gizmondo such a had time.

They bought something which may, or may not have ben a new iPhone. They didn't know whether it was or not until they bought it.

When they had bought it they said that if Apple got in touch, apple could have it back.

What is the problem?

Sheesh, some apple cultists remind me of scientologists. (except they don't kill as many people)

And let's not forget that the guy who found it tried to return it to it's owner, but by the morning the phone had ben remotely bricked. Then he called apple whom, it would seem, jerked him around and issued him a ticket!

 

[cmaier]

Are you taking the piss?
How can oodles of dollars worth of free iPhone advertisement possibly cost Apple?

Here we go again.

I was going to buy an iPhone 3GS tomorrow. It costs apple $100 to make, and they've already paid off and written down the R&D. In 2 years I might buy another iPhone (the new one), when it too costs them $100 to make and they've paid the R&D already.

Instead I will wait until mid-June because I just heard about a nifty replacement phone. So instead of getting my $500 today, Apple gets it in 2 months (when, due to the time value of money, $500 is worth less than it would be today). Further, the phone I will be buying costs Apple $300 to make, and they're still writing off their R&D on it. Thus they make much less profit on that sale. Then the next time I buy a phone, it will also be the new model, etc.

 

[tingly]

Are you taking the piss?
How can oodles of dollars worth of free iPhone advertisement possibly cost Apple?

The main damage is from losing 2 months of competitive advantage. There is also some from their having to redo its marketing. If there is no reaction from competitors, damage won't be too terribly much, maybe even balanced by the current publicity.

 

[ct2k7]

Are you taking the piss?
How can oodles of dollars worth of free iPhone advertisement possibly cost Apple?

I fail to se why apple cult members are giving gizmondo such a had time.

They bought something which may, or may not have ben a new iPhone. They didn't know whether it was or not until they bought it.

When they had bought it they said that if Apple got in touch, apple could have it back.

What is the problem?

Sheesh, some apple cultists remind me of scientologists. (except they don't kill as many people)

And let's not forget that the guy who found it tried to return it to it's owner, but by the morning the phone had ben remotely bricked. Then he called apple whom, it would seem, jerked him around and issued him a ticket!

Felony? Do you have a concious? I honestly don't hope you mind if I take your mobile phone and give Gizmodo exclusive access

 

[Anuba]

Actually I've always been a bit suspicious of a culture that serves meatballs without spaghetti.

Meatballs and spaghetti is "double al dente", you don't want to serve chewy with chewy. Spaghetti is much better suited for carbonara. Meatballs go better with mashed potatoes (classic), but macaroni is common as well. Either way our love of meatballs is way overblown, they don't even enjoy a status equivalent to that of turkey in the US.

I'll also never understand why you guys picked up the word "smörgåsbord". It's a table with lots of different food on it, hardly a unique Swedish concept...? I think the Spanish were having tapas before Sweden even had a flag.

Here we go again.

I was going to buy an iPhone 3GS tomorrow. It costs apple $100 to make, and they've already paid off and written down the R&D. In 2 years I might buy another iPhone (the new one), when it too costs them $100 to make and they've paid the R&D already.

Instead I will wait until mid-June because I just heard about a nifty replacement phone. So instead of getting my $500 today, Apple gets it in 2 months (when, due to the time value of money, $500 is worth less than it would be today). Further, the phone I will be buying costs Apple $300 to make, and they're still writing off their R&D on it. Thus they make much less profit on that sale. Then the next time I buy a phone, it will also be the new model, etc.

It's a possibility, and I'm sure there was some damage done if 3GS sales did indeed drop a few weeks too early. But really, who didn't know that a new iPhone was coming this summer? Apple's product release pattern isn't all that unpredictable. Every June/July for the last 3 years they've released a new iPhone, and the last one was a minor refresh rather than a brand new design so a new one couldn't be more overdue. And it's not a wild and daring prediction that new iPods will arrive in time for the holiday season. And on top of that we have tools like the MR Buyer's Guide. I realize that all customers aren't as calculating and up to date as others, but those customers probably weren't all over the Gizmodo story either.

 

[cmaier]

I'll also never understand why you guys picked up the word "smörgåsbord". It's a table with lots of different food on it, hardly a unique Swedish concept...? I think the Spanish were having tapas before Sweden even had a flag.

I haven't heard that word since 1978.

 

[dejo]

When they had bought it they said that if Apple got in touch, apple could have it back.

"I have your stolen property. But if you ask nicely, I'll let you have it back."

No problem there, right?

 

[tingly]

Yeah, we reverted back to "buffet."

 

[tigress666]

Now read this specific part: "News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”".

Now tell me people... how many times did I, chief editor of a well known Mac magazine, told you people here, that there was no "sale"? Thank you for not listening.

Funny how the story changed all the sudden. Couldn't be that Gizmodo realized their original story was a bad idea legally. nah... couldn't be that.

Also, if they only paid for exclusivity, why did they get posession of the phone? Shoot, they even took it apart.

Editors can pay for many things – like an exclusive story – but not a [in this case] "sale of the actual device". Which cannot be done, because that would simply be illegal.

Yeah, cause something being illegal means people won't do it. Oh wait, why do we have prisons then for all the people who break laws all the time? In fact prison overcrowding tends to be a problem in many areas.

It being illegal does not equal it being not done or that it is impossible that it happened.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Ah, interesting concept, our system doesn't break it down that way.
We have a group of crimes called "tillgreppsbrott" (misappropriation crimes), and in this group there's stuff like stöld (theft, or etymologically speaking "stealth" if you were to imagine that stealth was the action of stealing), snatteri (shoplifting), inbrott ("in-break", i.e. burglary), rån (robbery) etc.

We then may add "grov" (pronounced like groove) in front of the classification (grov means coarse, thick, heavy) to denote a higher level of seriousness – I suppose you'd translate it to "grand". And then there's also "ringa" (petty) for some classifications.

This goes for crimes outside the misappropriation group as well, like "grov våldtäkt" (um... 'grand rape'?), "grov misshandel" ('grand physical abuse'?) and grovt rattfylleri ('grand DUI', or literally 'heavy steering wheel drunkenness'). So most classifications have two or three steps, with exceptions of course – there's only "mord" (murder), no "grovt mord" (extra heavy
murder), naturally, and there's no "ringa våldtäkt" (petty rape), only regular and "grov".


Yeah, it's the same in Sweden – both have the same maximum penalty, but it's nice to have terminology that tells a bit more story. When I hear "thief" I'm picturing a thug who stole his 38th phone for the month, not grandma Helga, 87 who found a wallet but didn't bend over backwards to return it.

Yeah, I'm not saying one is necessarily less serious than the other, so the legislator had a point there. But it doesn't give any clues about premeditation/intent/malice which is half the story in my book, it's sort of like slapping manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, assisted suicide and murder together and simply calling it "killing".

When you're trained in one system, it's really broadening to consider another, and I appreciate your point. It is undeniably useful when the name of the crime instantly evokes a scenario. One drawback I can see to the California convention now is that a juror who equates theft only with a direct asportation from the immediate control of the owner may be harder to persuade to vote guilty if the instant defendant only misappropiated misplaced or lost property.

Good discussion--many thanks!

 

[farmboy]

There are different types?

I was told by farmboy there was only untheft (innocence) and double-plus-theft (non-innocence, punishable by death).

I get your humor here, but don't make s**t up. The whole 4000 posts here were about theft.

To svensker snakket sammen.
Den ene sa til den andre: "Jag är inteligent."
"Inte jag heller", svarte den andre.

 

[tingly]

Funny how the story changed all the sudden.

They said the $5,000 was just for access in at least one of the original articles. I don't remember if they said it was bought in their other articles or what.

 

[Cartaphilus]

[/QUOTE]

To svensker snakket sammen.
Den ene sa til den andre: "Jag är inteligent."
"Inte jag heller", svarte den andre.[/QUOTE]



This is undoubtedly Swedish for, "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain".

 

[Cartaphilus]

To svensker snakket sammen.
Den ene sa til den andre: "Jag är inteligent."
"Inte jag heller", svarte den andre.

Vet du hvorfor svenskene plystrer når de er på do?
Svar: Fordi de skal huske hvilken ende de skal tørke seg i!!!

 

[Anuba]

To svensker snakket sammen.
Den ene sa til den andre: "Jag är inteligent."
"Inte jag heller", svarte den andre.

This is undoubtedly Swedish for, "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain".

Nah, it's Norwegian. Sweden and Norway have sort of a US vs. Canada thing going, we exchange playful banter to mask the fact that we hate eachother's guts.

Like, "how do you sink a Norwegian submarine / knock three times on the hatch" and "why did the Norwegian bring a car door to the desert / so that he can roll down the window when it gets too hot".

Or in farmboy's example,

Two Swedes were talking.
One said to the other: "I'm intelligent."
"Me neither", the other responded.

Right, not even har-de-har funny since the play on words is lost in translation; the Swedish word is for "not" is "inte", so when the first guy says he's "intelligent" the second thinks he says "not ligent" (ligent isn't a word) and responds "me neither".

I'm sure these jokes had people in stitches back in 1914.

 

[freaknprtorican]

Gawker Media (parent company to Gizmodo) makes money by selling advertising on their site. How much they get for those ads is based upon page views. The more people that visit their site, the more money Gawker can charge.

Gawker doesn't reveal its ad revenue. But I know of sites that receive less traffic that will charge $5,000 per month for a single banner ad. I'm sure Gawker receives many times that amount. Particularly since they launched their initiative to pay bonuses to writers for page views (taken from this article in 2009):

Each writer on a site will have a (pretty demanding) individual pageview target…That target will be proportional to a writer’s base compensation. i.e. the more your monthly pay, the more people you’re expected to reach. If you go 10% over target, you get a 10% bump in pay. The target will rise as the traffic of the site as a whole increases. Your site’s editor-in-chief will be in touch to discuss the details later this week.

So Nick Denton (founder of Gawker) is dangling a nice juicy financial carrot out there to guys like Jason Chen to come up with a big story that brings lots of page views.

Bottom line: Gizmodo and Jason Chen wanted to expose the iPhone to MAKE MONEY. It's as simple as that. It was done in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar!

Mark

i'll admit when i've been corrected, touché.

 

[rish]

Biggest Load of.....

Are you taking the piss?
How can oodles of dollars worth of free iPhone advertisement possibly cost Apple?

I fail to se why apple cult members are giving gizmondo such a had time.

They bought something which may, or may not have ben a new iPhone. They didn't know whether it was or not until they bought it.

When they had bought it they said that if Apple got in touch, apple could have it back.

What is the problem?

Sheesh, some apple cultists remind me of scientologists. (except they don't kill as many people)

And let's not forget that the guy who found it tried to return it to it's owner, but by the morning the phone had ben remotely bricked. Then he called apple whom, it would seem, jerked him around and issued him a ticket!

Seriously. I cannot believe you're writing this. Are you kidding me. He tried to return it. He didn't try hard enough. If he couldn't get in touch with the rightful owner then the phone should of gone straight to the police not Gizmodo. For the Finder to make a profit of $5000 from the misfortune of the individual who lost it is nothing short of a total disgrace.

This is theft.

What Gizmodo did after that is criminal damage.

These are the facts. Now let's stick to these key points instead of applying questionable statements to devolve those of their moral responsibility.

Seriously this planets going to hell, people have the moral thought pattern of the horned one himself.

 

[PracticalMac]

Without pressure? A letter from Apple's General Counsel is not pressure?

That letter does not use any threatening wording.

"...constitutes a formal request...".
I do not see any treat of action in it, I do not see any accusations.

It sounds neutral.

"I have your stolen property. But if you ask nicely, I've let you have it back."

No problem there, right?

Their letter ("I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it—on record.") may be to properly transfer possession, but while its not a "ask nicely" letter, it does suggest a material trade.

 

[doktordoris]

Here we go again.

I was going to buy an iPhone 3GS tomorrow. It costs apple $100 to make, and they've already paid off and written down the R&D. In 2 years I might buy another iPhone (the new one), when it too costs them $100 to make and they've paid the R&D already.

Instead I will wait until mid-June because I just heard about a nifty replacement phone. So instead of getting my $500 today, Apple gets it in 2 months (when, due to the time value of money, $500 is worth less than it would be today). Further, the phone I will be buying costs Apple $300 to make, and they're still writing off their R&D on it. Thus they make much less profit on that sale. Then the next time I buy a phone, it will also be the new model, etc.

Haha. What abject ****tery.

Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know a new iPhone was going to be released this summer?

The new phone was a revelation which may cause people to hold off buying a new iPhone? What utter rot.

Even my technophobe grandmother knows that a new iPhone comes out every summer.

ANd you are a person who hangs out on a Macrumours site!

I know this may be news to you but apple have released a new iPhone every summer since the phone was brought to market.