And a sufficiently persistent private citizen can arm-twist the police into stepping up an investigation. Hm. So what's so unfair about Apple doing the same thing.
Yeah, I'm surprised that's not getting more play.
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
And a sufficiently persistent private citizen can arm-twist the police into stepping up an investigation. Hm. So what's so unfair about Apple doing the same thing.
Yeah, I'm surprised that's not getting more play.
So he is a journalist who writes for a blog rather than a newspaper or magazine....big deal. People are playing semantics games to try to bend things to their side.
But, but, it was his birthday! It wasn't Powell's fault he lost it! Gizmodo is evil!
/s
A reasonable and common practice would be to turn over the phone to the proprietor or someone in charge. That way, when the person who lost the phone calls the establishment asking if someone has found their phone, it can be returned to them promptly. Very simple. That's the way it works, that's what I've always done, that's what my friends have always done. Also, it's been reported that the employee who lost it called the bar at least 10 times!
The person who found the phone didn't do that. Gizmodo says the guy tried to call Apple to return the phone but was brushed away. Of course, this is all hearsay because none of it has been verified. We don't even know who this guy is and who at Apple he contacted.
Seriously folks. Since when do you call a phone manufacturer as the first step in returning a lost phone?
Um, hello, Apple? I just found a phone at my local pub and I want to return it to its rightful owner. Yeah, it's an iPhone but after I took all this crap off it, it looks like a different iPhone. No, I don't see a serial number on it and it's locked so I can't give you any more details.
Anyway, I'm anxious to know more about the guy who found it and sold it to Gizmodo. It appears he might be techno savvy enough to have known that he had something valuable in his hands and very important. How did this guy know to go to Gizmodo with his find?
We're all here pointing fingers at Gizmodo or Apple being the good guys or bad guys in this debacle. But why are we giving the pass to this guy who found it and sold it? Most here appear satisfied that he did his "duty" by calling Apple to try and return it. Again, who at Apple did he call? And is everyone at Tech Support or Customer Service supposed to know about a lost prototype iphone?
Depends on what else was going on. If there's big money going through there, yeah, they would.
And a prototype iPhone DOES represent big money.
I wonder if there was a relationship behind the 'finder' and Powell. Did they know each other? If so for how long? Were they colleagues, rivals or friends? One wonders because the finder seemingly quickly knew what he had. Did the finder know about the identity and nature of the phone before it was 'found'?
You've got to believe that the police are looking for the identity of the finder. Gizmodo may feel that they are journalists protecting their source. Of course this has nothing to do with journalism and is all about a crime being committed.
You've got to believe that the police are looking for the identity of the finder. Gizmodo may feel that they are journalists protecting their source. Of course this has nothing to do with journalism and is all about a crime being committed.
This isn't about a stolen phone though is it. It's a prototype, it's innards we photographed and posted over the net for all to see. Comments about what it had in and what it could do were posted.
I think all corporates would be unhappy about this. This is also an American corporate in a highly competitive market where competitors can move quickly and they just got a potential two month lead in.
There is no question in my mind excluding the law this was an incredibly stupid thing for Jason and Giz to do. And wrong.
Common sense: A phone was lost. The loser cannot know whether the phone was not found, or whether someone found it and just ignored it (that's one of your legal choices when you find something and can't be bothered, just leave it where it is), or whether someone found it, picked it up, and was trying to find him, or whether it was at some police department, as it should be, or whether someone stole it by picking it up and keeping it to himself.
Even if the loser knew exactly what happened, he didn't necessarily know the phone was stolen. Maybe his mum told him "finders, keepers". And only when he talked to a lawyer did he realise that his mum was wrong, and "finders, keepers, thievers".
It was made evident by Gizmodo that Jason Chen is one of their writers, on their payroll, is full-time and offices out of his home. Chances are, he probably files for income tax deductions on the portion of his home used for said business (I would, if my site's traffic volume actually generated any revenue).
In all respects, either his home is a remote office of a Gizmodo employee, or he can claim he's not a real journalist, thereby completely throwing out any applicability of Section 1070 which Gizmodo cited in their defense... either way, Chen loses.
Based on this new information, the fact that the Apple employee appears to have been the one to report the item stolen, probably following his company's protocols (and common sense, as well as obligation, if you've ever been responsible for any company property).... It looks like Gizmodo's lawyers will regroup and hang Chen out to dry.
He purchased goods that were reported stolen by the person responsible for them. He paid a sum that indicates he knew, and Gizmodo (who likely authorized the purchase) knew, exactly what he was buying. The buyer clearly wasn't under the impression that the phone was just personal property as they made every effort to advertise that it is an unreleased prototype (read: trade secret; company property; NOT LEGALLY SELLABLE)...
Gizmodo, it was nice knowing you.
...no, it wasn't.
By many accounts, he knew who the prototype was assigned to. Why didn't he contact that person?
So are you just a blank page?
Haven't you followed the thread? Found property that is not returned to it's owner but is surrendered to someone else is MISAPPROPRIATION which falls under the definition of stolen property by statue.
By definition a blogs have been determined by a court of law to be a periodical, which makes Mr. Chen a journalist unless of course his employer hasn't obtained the appropriate documentation vis-a-vis licenses and registrations.
GEEZ, I sure hope I never lose something in your presence! You're liable to MISAPPROPRIATE it from me forever, cuz IT SURE AIN'T STEALING!
Well there is no question in my mind that Apple is being a bully and Gizmodo did nothing wrong.
I could care less what value Apple places on it's prototype...I place no more value on it than anything belonging to an average person yet those people would not get such rapid and aggressive investigation. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind but it's quite clear she is influenced by money and power just like everyone else.
AND....
More journalistic outlets ceased communication once the "finder" started hinting that he wanted money for the phone. Gizmodo, being staffed by immature "journalists", came through with the money in the end.
I still wonder: it wasn't turned in to the bartender because he might sell it on craigslist, but then the "finder" turns around and fishes for a buyer?
More journalistic outlets ceased communication once the "finder" started hinting that he wanted money for the phone. Gizmodo, being staffed by immature "journalists", came through with the money in the end.
I still wonder: it wasn't turned in to the bartender because he might sell it on craigslist, but then the "finder" turns around and fishes for a buyer?
You seem to be a bit behind the power curve. The story long ago moved on to Jason Chen.
Here's a hint.
It's easy to find where you are in the forums at the top of the page; this one is:
"Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple"
It centers around Jason Chen's actions.
Conceptually not that difficult to comprehend.
First thing you do when you lose something important: file a police report.
You deserve to be stolen from if you wait weeks until you start legal action.
Not just that, but it also falls under misappropriation of trade secrets, by way of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Remember that they dismantled the phone, showing interior components and detail about its presumed capabilities/features... not that anything more than disclosing the design itself is needed to prove misappropriation in the case of the UTSA, but it certainly puts Gizmodo's neck under a boot.
Somebody recently came up with an interesting parallel scenario:
If someone "found" your car in a parking lot, then proceeded to sell it to someone who took it apart and reassembled it, then decided after a few weeks he'd gotten what he wanted from it and then decided to give it back to you, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
Hmmm, you didn't see the article about the theft being reported by Gray Powell and Apple's outside counsel? Oh, and Apple's being a bully because Gizmodo didn't receive stolen property, didn't pay the finder a $5,000 payment, didn't notify authorities that someone was shopping something he didn't own to the highest bidder?
Gee I guess he missed the title of "Thread Police" under your name. Can you outline specifically what you will allow us to speak about?
Thanks.
I recall early in the year when Gizmodo was offering up to $100,000 for info on the iPad. I couldn't remember the exact terms so I Googled and found their page.
This sentence at the bottom of their page really stands out now in light of recent events:
http://gizmodo.com/5447249/100000-for-evidence-of-apple-tablet
Really? First thing I do is look at the last place I remembered leaving it. Then I look at other places I might have left it. That's what Gray did when he called the bar to see if it had been turned in. Not once, not twice, but ten plus times according to some reports.
My mom misplaces her phone constantly. It's usually in the car. Instead of going down and looking for it, are you suggesting she file a police report every time? We may as well permanently station an officer at her door, then.
My mom misplaces her phone constantly. It's usually in the car. Instead of going down and looking for it, are you suggesting she file a police report every time? We may as well permanently station an officer at her door, then.