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.
Finder of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Identified
- Thread starter sravana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I agree.
But you and I know that they would have given him a Verizon based iPhone (that only upper management uses), a 15" MacBook Pro with a matte screen and a gay-ish Prius with Apple sticker in all the windows.
But know that you did good even without a reward.
Theft is a crime against possession, so returning the phone either to the engineer who was testing it or to his employer would have satisfied either the criminal or civil laws of California (not sure which you read). This is a fairly common situation since people lease automobiles, take books out of libraries, transport other people's goods, etc.
The what now? C'mon, give the foreigners a chance, at least use something they can google that doesn't bring up...
The United States...
...Tennis Association
...Trotting Association
...Twirling Association
...Trampoline & Tumbling Association (I wish I was making that one up).
"USTA + law" only gets you to a lawyer specializing in tennis related injury claims (that's right, contact Ken LeMance if you have a racket stuck up your rear).
I sure wouldn't want to conspire to violate the United States Trampoline Association, I hear those guys are... fierce?
I think misplacing the phone probably destroyed the trade secret protection of that which could be learned in the process of taking reasonable and just efforts to return it to its owner, and probably the least invasive efforts at that. So if I'm the judge, aware of Gizmodo's motives, I'm not going to give them much latitude on the question of just what needed to be done by them to return the phone. It's a very, very long way from calling the bar and telling management that you have a phone that was lost there, has anyone called looking for it, to taking the thing apart. I think that Gizmodo's tale about being so fervently committed to finding the true owner they had to disassemble the phone is going to fall on fairly incredulous ears when there were so, so many far less invasive steps they could have taken first.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if, assuming this case got far enough along, somebody proposes a limited right to become privy to trade secrets for the sole purpose of returning lost property, providing further, however, that the right does not extend to communicating the secrets to anyone else. There are a number of legal constructs or fictions that could accomplish this result deftly, and I think it would be appealing.
I think any action taken for which the primary purpose is the disclosure of trade secrets is going to be found to support a finding of misappropriation. And I think Gizmodo is starting off in a very deep hole.
Oh, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Mmmm...no, not really. We know very well what we're doing.
I'm no law genius, but I don't think the law recognizes mistakes, poor judgements or brain farts.
Well, you're half-right.
Totally out of line. A mistake was made by Apple and others and the dogs need to be called off.
Are you kidding? Someone who shoplifted $5000 from a store would be in way worse condition than this kid. You guys are really delusional about the law.
Considering it's been like that since well into last year, it's got to be a breach of the law. A bigger question exists of why he thinks acts though there is different rules for him than for everyone else.
Right, so instead of an Apple representative coming to this guy's house and asking for the phone back, they should have instead just gone straight to the step of having the police visit him? Which do you think would have more serious consequences? It's entirely possible that Apple was trying to cut this guy a break while keeping the situation as contained and quiet as possible by handling it privately, rather than having the cops in on it.
If you're saying a shoplifter "would be in way worse condition than this kid", what are you suggesting? What kind of justice can you possibly be thinking of?
At the moment the respondents aren't putting it like that though...they're trying to say Apple wanted entry rather than reasoned discussion that you've raised. I agree that the contained approach would have been the best possible solution for everyone.
If the phone was lost and not stolen, we are still only getting one side of the story, the guy who misplaced it should have taken better care of it. That still doesn't give this Hogan guy the right to pocket it and sell it to the highest bidder. The minute Hogan left the bar with it and didn't attempt to locate the owner in a reasonable fashion he committed theft. He went on to prove the theft by selling it to the highest bidder, which he didn't have the legal right to do. Now why someone wouldn't by an Apple product again because Apple knocked on a door attempting to claim what was legally theirs is beyond comprehension. They didn't do anything besides leave when told they could not have their property and did what anyone would do when someone refused to give property back: file a police report. I'm thinking people are letting their hatred for apple get confused with the facts here.
The reason I ask is because how can something be theft if you a) don't know how to contact the owner? and b) don't know its a prototype? For all the young guy knew, he had a iPhone in his hand.
You both apparently read the poorly worded summary instead of the article.
He sold something he knew for certain was not him. Only the truly delusional would accept him having a friend promise to call Applecare as a reasonable attempt to find the owner of the device before he sold it. Since the name Gray Powell appeared in the Gizmodo story, it also seems obvious he knew the name of the person that he stole the phone from. He made no, none, zero, nada attempts to return the phone according to his story as reported by Wired.
Even if he thought it was just an iPhone he still took it without making an attempt to find the owner or turn it over to the barkeeper or even the police. That's theft.
I personally think he intended on keeping the phone all along, he just changed his mind when he realized what he had and figured he'd make some money off it.
From a criminal law standpoint, giving it to the manager of this type of bar I'm sure would have been fine, no matter who you thought it belonged to or if you had no idea. Bringing it to the police is fine too, and has the added benefit that if you also do some other things, you could end up with the phone one day if the owner couldn't be found.
I'd be wary about giving it to any other third party, especially if you had no idea who they were. If you wanted to to that, you'd be better off just leaving the phone on the stool--you have no duty to deal with it.
This, I have to tell you, is my opinion of what would be reasonable and just efforts. Although I believe that virtually all lawyers would agree, the law is not any more specific than that. There may be cases--I haven't looked for them---that addressed some broadly similar situation as a matter of law, but since each scenario is unique, I'd be surprised if you'd get any help.
I'm highly confident, though, that if you act like you have a genuine desire to get the phone back to the owner, and if you really aren't interested in benefitting yourself from what you found, you'd never have a problem.
Those two are not mutually exclusive. The Apple employee lost the phone at the bar, and Hogan stole it when he took it from the bar and did not make a reasonable effort to find the owner, but instead sold it to Gizmodo.
I've been watching this whole debate as we all have. I agree too but <sarcasm>I think his lawyers are going to try to claim he's too young to think reasonably or he was too busy helping orphans somewhere</sarcasm>
Agreed. Was just trying to soften it some so the people who are claiming it's lost might actually see Hogan had no right to sell it.