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.
Law Enforcement Reportedly Looking Into Circumstances of Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the end it doesn't matter wether we think it is morally or ethically right or wrong. If the law says it is illegal then it's illegal.
And to those people who say if they lost something they wouldn't expect to get it back: isn't it better if you DO get it back? That's why the law protects you in this way because it is right and decent to get your property back.
And to those people who say if they lost something they wouldn't expect to get it back: isn't it better if you DO get it back? That's why the law protects you in this way because it is right and decent to get your property back.
LOL.. Poor Gizmodo. I think this is going to get ugly and Apple has a lot of money to play with too.
The morals of some of the people posting on this site is startling. Remind me never to hang around in real life with people from Macrumors. If I set anything down for a second - it'd be gone in an instant!
Law aside, I keep forgetting that so many people don't look through the glass of right & wrong, but instead look through the glass of what they can get away with or not. "Finders keepers?" Do people really STILL follow the advice of some kindergarten snot-nosed kid?
Law aside, I keep forgetting that so many people don't look through the glass of right & wrong, but instead look through the glass of what they can get away with or not. "Finders keepers?" Do people really STILL follow the advice of some kindergarten snot-nosed kid?
I have. Your disagreement with me doesn't change that. But good try
Then you will also know that the finder had the owner's details, and refused to answer calls to the device.
You should read a bit more other than Gizmodo's side of things.
Dammit i usually prefer to follow gizmodo's coverage of Apple events. Looks like that might be coming to an end now. One thing i will say is that imagine if they had contacted Apple and said they had come into possession of what they believed to be one of their prototype iphones and wished to return it. They would be well in favour with Apple, and thats not a bad thing surely
One thing i will say is that imagine if they had contacted Apple and said they had come into possession of what they believed to be one of their prototype iphones and wished to return it. They would be well in favour with Apple, and thats not a bad thing surely
I think this is very messy.
Apple likely cannot sue Gizmodo. Why?
First, for one: Gizmodo is a New York entity, not a California one. They have no duty to act under California law.
Second: Gizmodo, under NEW YORK law, has TEN days to hand in the device to the owner OR to the police. Since they are a blog with wide circulation and readership, they simply used the best means they had at their disposal to attempt to locate the owner. (In so doing, they figured out the phone is Apple's and dissected the thing like a science experiment, and while that may not have been the most expedient, it certainly did ascertain that the device was infact an Apple one and did make the case for the likely rightful owner to be Apple.)
HOWEVER: if Apple wants to sue the person who FOUND the iPhone in the bar originally, then I think there's a potential case. In order for Apple to get at that person, however, they need to find them, and they are technically a source for a journalist story, and are subject to Shield Law immunity.
If Apple DOES attempt to sue the original person by getting their name by way of a subpoena to Gizmodo, and the original person was promised anonymity by Gizmodo, that person has a case to then turn around and sue Gizmodo for being given up.
If Apple gets the original person's name in some other way, and chooses to sue them, Gizmodo could inherently have a case to sue Apple claiming tortious interference, as Gizmodo and the source likely have a deal whereby Gizmodo promised anonymity as the source for a journalist story.
Being a source is a BIG DEAL: Both California and New York provide state constitutional-level protections to news sources and provide implicit instructions that no news agency or reporter needs to respond to a subpoena to give up a source.
I know there are some folks here who think the $5000 the original founder got from Gizmodo is an outrageous sum given it was Apple's property. However, both CA and NY state laws allow for the return of the lost item to the original owner, minus storage and other fees.
In no place can I see that the laws say such storage and other fees need to be 'reasonable'. So what is 'reasonable'? Likely, you could make a case that the fees should be based on 'what the market will bear' for such fees, and now you have a marketplace willing to give you five grand for your troubles.
And mind you, Gizmodo returned the item to Apple.
I think any case Apple wants to make is going to be very messy.
Apple likely cannot sue Gizmodo. Why?
First, for one: Gizmodo is a New York entity, not a California one. They have no duty to act under California law.
Second: Gizmodo, under NEW YORK law, has TEN days to hand in the device to the owner OR to the police. Since they are a blog with wide circulation and readership, they simply used the best means they had at their disposal to attempt to locate the owner. (In so doing, they figured out the phone is Apple's and dissected the thing like a science experiment, and while that may not have been the most expedient, it certainly did ascertain that the device was infact an Apple one and did make the case for the likely rightful owner to be Apple.)
HOWEVER: if Apple wants to sue the person who FOUND the iPhone in the bar originally, then I think there's a potential case. In order for Apple to get at that person, however, they need to find them, and they are technically a source for a journalist story, and are subject to Shield Law immunity.
If Apple DOES attempt to sue the original person by getting their name by way of a subpoena to Gizmodo, and the original person was promised anonymity by Gizmodo, that person has a case to then turn around and sue Gizmodo for being given up.
If Apple gets the original person's name in some other way, and chooses to sue them, Gizmodo could inherently have a case to sue Apple claiming tortious interference, as Gizmodo and the source likely have a deal whereby Gizmodo promised anonymity as the source for a journalist story.
Being a source is a BIG DEAL: Both California and New York provide state constitutional-level protections to news sources and provide implicit instructions that no news agency or reporter needs to respond to a subpoena to give up a source.
I know there are some folks here who think the $5000 the original founder got from Gizmodo is an outrageous sum given it was Apple's property. However, both CA and NY state laws allow for the return of the lost item to the original owner, minus storage and other fees.
In no place can I see that the laws say such storage and other fees need to be 'reasonable'. So what is 'reasonable'? Likely, you could make a case that the fees should be based on 'what the market will bear' for such fees, and now you have a marketplace willing to give you five grand for your troubles.
And mind you, Gizmodo returned the item to Apple.
I think any case Apple wants to make is going to be very messy.
They can still file a lawsuite in California - the whole even took place in Cali.
A lot of things happened in California. What does NY law say on purchasing stolen goods?
Obviously, but either way, Gizmodo will get hurt.
It wasn't lost, but rather stolen by the time it reached Gizmodo.
That's what Gizmodo's saying, no one to verify.
Obviously.
many people saying stuff like... said:
I don't know the details of any conversation the guy who found the iPhone supposedly had with Apple, but if i called Apple and said I had found an iPhone and what should I do with it, I wouldn't expect much of a response. But if I said I think I found a prototype left by an employee, then that is completely different! We don't know what conversation or information transpired. And I still can't believe that even though the guy who found the iPhone didn't speak with the bar staff/manager about the lost goods, not to mention that the guy who found it apparently knew who the owner was through the facebook account on the facebook app. Here would be an easy way to get the iPhone back to it's owner.
Let's hope that this story is true:
"The finder did not sell the iPhone to Gizmodo [for $5000] since that was bail money.".
In which case there was no sale and thus no wrongdoing was done. Nothing can be done about it – not even Apple can change CA law – but if not, then Gizmodo [staff] should be ashamed and prosecuted. Period.
"The finder did not sell the iPhone to Gizmodo [for $5000] since that was bail money.".
In which case there was no sale and thus no wrongdoing was done. Nothing can be done about it – not even Apple can change CA law – but if not, then Gizmodo [staff] should be ashamed and prosecuted. Period.
Not an American so asking for clarification (on MacRumors? who am I kidding?) It it was stolen and sold in California then it falls under California law? If it was stolen in one State and sold in another then surely this falls under the FBI's jurisdiction, or have I misunderstood what little I have gleaned from American films (movies is such a retarded term)
You mean money Apple makes?
You mean money Apple makes?
Apple is perhaps the largest tax payer in that area. So it's Apple's success that helps public services operating, including cops that protect asses of local citizens from being robbed or mistreated by the second-rate tabloid nonsense websites like Gizmodo ..
You mean money Apple makes?
Apple is perhaps the largest tax payer in that area. So it's Apple's success that helps public services operating, including cops that protect asses of local citizens from being robbed or mistreated by the second-rate tabloid nonsense websites like Gizmodo ..
LOL, you hit the nail on the head.
They need to rename this place from MacRumors to Steve Jobs Worship Board.
God had this place and its fan boys have made me hate apple.
1. There appears to be more than a few people suffering from get-even-with-them-ism out there, and that Apple deserves what is happening. If this is the reasoning that we now use to justify bad behavior, I hope for Anne Hathaway's sake she's never seen wearing a string bikini.
2. Taking that which does not belong to you makes you a thief. If you find that attitude simplistic, it is probably because you're a thief.
2. Taking that which does not belong to you makes you a thief. If you find that attitude simplistic, it is probably because you're a thief.
This isn't news story, this is a grand theft
I think your entire post was a mess with no clear pivotal point, which you avoid entirely -- we're not talking about providing news to the audience. This is not the news of any kind: this is in the same level as the industrial espionage, because the effects of the act are same.
- The stolen phone clearly was a *prototype*, which means something not intended to be in the news altogether. Newly announced products are news, but not new prototypes with an emerging technology or functionality.
- Undisclosed prototypes are trade secrets, and every company competing in the marketplace must protect its secrets to keep its competitive advantage. If for some reason it fails to do so, and their secrets become revealed, then their competitors gain the momentum by getting an access to all the new features and functionality. There they get an insight into the future development of the product (and can extrapolate market tendencies shift) with no hard work involved on their side.
- The company suffers the consequences in the form of profit loss, new business opportunity loss, loss of the momentum. In real life terms that can mean shutting off local offices, laying off hard working people, incurring social pressure onto their families and the community, which loses hard earned tax money and productive, creative workforce.
- instead of feeding local development of the community, tax money doesn't get collected but suddenly goes elsewhere, and your image as the industry leader subsides; only to be taken by mediocre industry followers and copycats who gain invaluable insights with zero effort.
Apple has every right to protect its bread and butter, which is innovation and its creative, visionary people. No other company in the entire world innovates like them, investing enormously into human capital and products that change the way we imagine technology and modern digital life. Thus their love for secrecy is understandable because no one else dares to explore, spend enormous money in experimentation, R&D and go as far as they are.
You, as the user, enjoy those benefits because they give you a substantial value in purchase, a point of distinction, and also a competitive edge and efficiency in your work, in your own industry and creativity (if you have any). And even if you don't use their products, and use some competitors' products, you still gain from their innovation because your product also gets improved as a result of positive change in Apple's courtyard.
Restrict Apple that right and we'll end up in a reality where mediocrity and intellectual property theft is a norm -- even encouraged, where is normal to pay a top dollar for a mediocre, bloated product, where thieves are rewarded for their immoral acts and where any website can publish anything just to gather few more miserable clicks. But they never think enough about the real consequences of their acts. They only think about how'd they get away with all this mess by calling up 1st amendment, holier than thou freedom of press rights, etc. to help cure their lack of sobriety, sanity and lack of good judgment.
I think your entire post was a mess with no clear pivotal point, which you avoid entirely -- we're not talking about providing news to the audience. This is not the news of any kind: this is in the same level as the industrial espionage, because the effects of the act are same.
- The stolen phone clearly was a *prototype*, which means something not intended to be in the news altogether. Newly announced products are news, but not new prototypes with an emerging technology or functionality.
- Undisclosed prototypes are trade secrets, and every company competing in the marketplace must protect its secrets to keep its competitive advantage. If for some reason it fails to do so, and their secrets become revealed, then their competitors gain the momentum by getting an access to all the new features and functionality. There they get an insight into the future development of the product (and can extrapolate market tendencies shift) with no hard work involved on their side.
- The company suffers the consequences in the form of profit loss, new business opportunity loss, loss of the momentum. In real life terms that can mean shutting off local offices, laying off hard working people, incurring social pressure onto their families and the community, which loses hard earned tax money and productive, creative workforce.
- instead of feeding local development of the community, tax money doesn't get collected but suddenly goes elsewhere, and your image as the industry leader subsides; only to be taken by mediocre industry followers and copycats who gain invaluable insights with zero effort.
Apple has every right to protect its bread and butter, which is innovation and its creative, visionary people. No other company in the entire world innovates like them, investing enormously into human capital and products that change the way we imagine technology and modern digital life. Thus their love for secrecy is understandable because no one else dares to explore, spend enormous money in experimentation, R&D and go as far as they are.
You, as the user, enjoy those benefits because they give you a substantial value in purchase, a point of distinction, and also a competitive edge and efficiency in your work, in your own industry and creativity (if you have any). And even if you don't use their products, and use some competitors' products, you still gain from their innovation because your product also gets improved as a result of positive change in Apple's courtyard.
Restrict Apple that right and we'll end up in a reality where mediocrity and intellectual property theft is a norm -- even encouraged, where is normal to pay a top dollar for a mediocre, bloated product, where thieves are rewarded for their immoral acts and where any website can publish anything just to gather few more miserable clicks. But they never think enough about the real consequences of their acts. They only think about how'd they get away with all this mess by calling up 1st amendment, holier than thou freedom of press rights, etc. to help cure their lack of sobriety, sanity and lack of good judgment.
Thereby committing perjury himself, and going to jail when it is proven he lied under oath. Oh, and most defendants in criminal cases DON'T get on the stand to testify, because it doesn't typically end well for them.
I will not be coming to you for legal advice.
I haven't read through all 23 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned...
We have a drunk Apple engineer leaving an iPhone prototype in a bar. We have a second party who found it and made good faith attempts to return it to Apple. Then we have Gizmodo offering $5k for it. Apple requests its return and Gizmodo complies in a timely manner.
So far the chief issue here is the $5k transaction, at least regarding criminal proceedings.
I might argue that Gizmodo did not purchase the iPhone prototype for $5k. Gizmodo would not have splurged that much if they weren't absolutely certain that this was indeed an important prototype, which means they knew they would have to return it to Apple in a very short span of time. So they either a) offered the finder a $5k fee for the privilege of returning it to Apple on his behalf at best, or b) essentially rented it for a few hours at worst. The fact that Apple would recover the property was really never in question, and that coupled with the engineer being on a bender at the time of the loss of possession should take a lot of the "stolen property" wind out of the criminal proceedings.
Of course, Apple can sue them in civil court for issues related to intellectual property theft and the public dissemination of trade secrets, but as Gizmodo is essentially part of the free press, that isn't a slam dunk, either.
Apple is at fault for all of this, ultimately. Their representative left sensitive material unattended in a public place.
We have a drunk Apple engineer leaving an iPhone prototype in a bar. We have a second party who found it and made good faith attempts to return it to Apple. Then we have Gizmodo offering $5k for it. Apple requests its return and Gizmodo complies in a timely manner.
So far the chief issue here is the $5k transaction, at least regarding criminal proceedings.
I might argue that Gizmodo did not purchase the iPhone prototype for $5k. Gizmodo would not have splurged that much if they weren't absolutely certain that this was indeed an important prototype, which means they knew they would have to return it to Apple in a very short span of time. So they either a) offered the finder a $5k fee for the privilege of returning it to Apple on his behalf at best, or b) essentially rented it for a few hours at worst. The fact that Apple would recover the property was really never in question, and that coupled with the engineer being on a bender at the time of the loss of possession should take a lot of the "stolen property" wind out of the criminal proceedings.
Of course, Apple can sue them in civil court for issues related to intellectual property theft and the public dissemination of trade secrets, but as Gizmodo is essentially part of the free press, that isn't a slam dunk, either.
Apple is at fault for all of this, ultimately. Their representative left sensitive material unattended in a public place.
Property belonging to a patron in a bar/restaurant and picked up isn't "found property". It's a $600 device, with ID inside. No different than a purse or a laptop. Absolutely no right to remove it from the place where the customer knew he left it. Try leaving a bar with someone else's purse or laptop, and saying you intended to return it to the owner. A lot of moral midgets here.
The $5000 transaction was not the main crime, nor was the fact that the property was a secret iPhone prototype, and nor was the fact that the guy who lost it was drinking in a bar. It could have been a wallet left on a bus.
A plain english translation of CA law is something like:
If you come into possession of a piece of property that you think might belong to some else then you have a legal responsibility to take certain steps to return it to the owner. If you can't take those steps or can't find the owner then you have to turn the property into the police. If the police can't find the owner after a period of time, then you can claim it back and keep it. If you come into possession of a piece of property and don't do these things, then CA law defines you as a thief.
So, in summary, both the guy who found it as well as the Gizmodo staff became thieves at different times because they "came into possession" at different times. But neither of them followed their legal responsibilities, so they became thieves under CA law.