Sidebar Sidebar
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

cmaier said:
Clearly Gizmodo conspired with a guy who stole the phone. End of story.
Click to expand...

Dude, you just committed slander per se! :D


The investigation is good news, because none of us has very good information on what actually happened. I.e., Giz says that the finder says that he called apple repeatedly and was blown off. Giz says that the finder said that he found Powell told them that he finder found Powell's contact information on the phone.

News reports, etc. concerning crimes are in my experience always misleading because they don't include all of the relevant information, and usually improperly characterize the information that they do have.
 
alhedges said:
Dude, you just committed slander per se! :D


The investigation is good news, because none of us has very good information on what actually happened. I.e., Giz says that the finder says that he called apple repeatedly and was blown off. Giz says that the finder said that he found Powell told them that he finder found Powell's contact information on the phone.

News reports, etc. concerning crimes are in my experience always misleading because they don't include all of the relevant information, and usually improperly characterize the information that they do have.
Click to expand...

It's only slander if it's false :)
 
cmaier said:
You just proved the DA's case. In California, it doesn't matter if Gizmodo "knew." It's enough that they SHOULD HAVE known. Willful ignorance is not a defense. And paying $5000 is incredibly strong evidence that they knew it was stolen.
Click to expand...
That only works when you are buying subwoofers out of a van at home depot.
 
Ryeno said:
That only works when you are buying subwoofers out of a van at home depot.
Click to expand...

I have fair familiarity with the California Penal Code, and I am unaware of anywhere where the law against receiving stolen property is limited to audio equipment.
 
Ryeno said:
post up the code then
Click to expand...

It's been posted ad nauseum in this and other threads. Here's a link to an article by a lawyer which includes links to the statutes:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/23/determining-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-the-lost-iphone/

More importantly, it includes links to how courts in California interpret the statutes (called "case citations"). The courts say "if the circumstances reasonably lead a person to believe the thing is not the lawful property of the seller when you attempt to buy it, that person's on notice."

See, e.g., People v. Clausen 120 Cal. 381, 383 (Cal. 1898) (where the circumstances of the sale ought to make someone at least suspicious of the origin of the good); Castillo-Cruz v. Holder 581 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2009) (where there is no requirement of an intent on the part of the recipient to deprive the owner of possession permanently).
Click to expand...
 
Ryeno said:
post up the code then
Click to expand...

Section 496 of the California Penal Code states in pertinent part:

(a)Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
 
cmaier said:
It's been posted ad nauseum in this and other threads. Here's a link to an article by a lawyer which includes links to the statutes:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/23/determining-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-the-lost-iphone/

More importantly, it includes links to how courts in California interpret the statutes (called "case citations"). The courts say "if the circumstances reasonably lead a person to believe the thing is not the lawful property of the seller when you attempt to buy it, that person's on notice."
Click to expand...

Great article

tuaw said:
nor is she licensed in California
Click to expand...
nuff said.
 
ct2k7 said:
And I trust Cliff.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but just to be clear, I'm not offering a legal opinion and I'm not anyone's lawyer here. I'm not privy to all the details of the case, etc. But it's a general principal of law in California (and many other jurisdictions) that you can't bury your head in the sand to avoid knowing that which a reasonable person would have known. Throw in that $5000 payment (as someone else pointed out - if I were to call up gizmodo and offer to sell them a random phone for $5000, they wouldn't accept), and Gizmodo likely has itself a problem.
 
cmaier said:
Thanks, but just to be clear, I'm not offering a legal opinion and I'm not anyone's lawyer here. I'm not privy to all the details of the case, etc. But it's a general principal of law in California (and many other jurisdictions) that you can't bury your head in the sand to avoid knowing that which a reasonable person would have known. Throw in that $5000 payment (as someone else pointed out - if I were to call up gizmodo and offer to sell them a random phone for $5000, they wouldn't accept), and Gizmodo likely has itself a problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) From my own personal research of Cliff, I can say that he's a good person, and knows what he's talking about.
 
In my view the dots are best connected to Gizmodo by citing their own statements regarding the circumstances by which their seller obtained the phone. Gizmodo relies primarily on their position that the finder took "reasonable and just" steps to return the phone to its true owner or custodian. Gizmodo relates the activities of the finder, apparently primarily relying on the finder's assertion that he called Apple switchboards (elsewhere reported as AppleCare) but was unsuccessful in reaching anyone with knowledge of, or expressed interest in, the test version of the iPhone. The failure of a finder of valuable property to expend the requisite level of effort to restore it to its owner makes the finder guilty of theft under the Penal Code.

Many knowledgeable people have commented that being aware of these facts, Gizmodo was clearly on notice that the provenance of the phone being offered to them for sale was at the very least highly questionable. Accordingly, Gizmodo had a duty to inquire--to take reasonable steps to determine whether the phone had been the object of theft. This determination, in turn, rests on whether or not the finder's actions met the standard of "reasonable and just" efforts.

Even if one accepts the version of the facts published by Gizmodo, and even if one can be persuaded that calling a general Apple phone number was sufficient, a reasonable person would certainly recognize that under these circumstances a reasonable jury could determine that the finder had to have notified the bar's management and left his contact information, made an effort to contact the individual whose identity he learned from the phone's data, or take one or more of many other actions better calculated to reach those with the legal right to possess the phone. And even this depends on the credibility of a seller with a motive to dissemble.

Given this state of affairs, Gizmodo has the obligation to further inquire, something a reasonable jury could likely conclude it could have easily done (because it and its parent company had the necessary resources and contacts) simply by contacting Apple's general counsel and faxing the unique identification code taped to the back of the phone. Any concern, no matter how far-fetched, that Apple would lie about owning the phone could easily have been resolved through a judicial proceeding: an action in the nature of interpleader, whereby the questionable property is deposited with the clerk of the court until the court determines its owner.

The jury may properly consider the financial motives of the seller and of Gizmodo in determining whether either or both fulfilled their obligations under the law, and in gauging their credibility.
 
This has been fascinating reading

Having read through most of this thread...

I believe both the "finder" are Gizmodo are in deep trouble.

The key point I keep coming back to is...when one paid $5,000 and the other accepted $5,000 they KNEW they had a iphone prototype.

They can claim otherwise, but if I were on a jury, I'd say "yeah right" and vote to convict. I'll let the DA determine the exact crime or more likely, crimes.
 
johnqh said:
Actually, from California point of view, it absolutely makes sense to pursue the case to protect one of the most valuable employer and tax payer in the state.

Damage to Apple means damage to the state. Let's calculate

Assume the damage to Apple is 10,000 phones in sales (my low estimate). Gross margin at 50%, selling price at $500 each (unsubsidized). That's $5 million damage to Apple in sales, $2.5 million lost income.

California business income tax rate is about 10%. So the state loses about 250K in income tax collection.

If 10% of the sales happen in California, that's about anothing 50K lost sales tax collection.

Total damage to the state: 300K.
Total damage to IRS: 600K (Apple's federal corporation income tax is probably around 25%)

You bet the state should pursue the case.
Click to expand...

+1

Thanks for pointing out some realities.

My 2 cents worts: Some people try to marginalize the case by saying "its just a phone". This isn't a case about some lost (correction: stolen) phone. It's a case about the theft of a device representing millions of dollars in R&D, and it's "outing" causing damage to Apple's marketing and sales.

Regarding the possible criminal case: It'd be interesting to find out what value Apple reported to law enforcement. It's bound to be far more than $5k.
 
Let's make a deal

If I had found it I would have called Apple and told them what I had, and that I would not say anything about it. But how about an iPad as an award for returning it. :)
 
If I had found the prototype, I would've done this:

1.) Slip it in my pocket, say nothing to anyone
2.) Drive to Cupertino
3.) Ask to speak with SJ or someone high-up
4.) Show the person the phone and ask if it belongs to Apple
5.) Person says yes, wants it back
6.) Ask for job
7.) Get hired

Yeah right. Oh well...too bad I don't live on the West Coast. :(
 
or

7.) get blindfolded, dragged to Apple iDungeon, itortured finger chopped off and tossed out on the street..

i'd hope for 7 too for the sake of being honest and good! :D
 
nookster said:
So, where you live, is there a law that legally compels you to hand lost property over to a staff member? Unless I know who I'm giving the property to, I always hand things over to the Police, and there's no law in my neck of the woods preventing me from doing so, in fact it' preferred;)
Click to expand...


WTF is wrong wih you. When any valuable property is left in a restaurant--that's left, not lost--the restaurant is where the owner will return to recover it. If you leave with it, you are NOT helping the owner of the property recover the property. You have trouble understanding that??????
 
Terminal.app said:
If I had found the prototype, I would've done this:

1.) Slip it in my pocket, say nothing to anyone
2.) Drive to Cupertino
3.) Ask to speak with SJ or someone high-up
4.) Show the person the phone and ask if it belongs to Apple
5.) Person says yes, wants it back
6.) Ask for job
7.) Get hired
Click to expand...

8.) Get arrested for extortion?

:)
 
mccldwll said:
WTF is wrong wih you. When any valuable property is left in a restaurant--that's left, not lost--the restaurant is where the owner will return to recover it. If you leave with it, you are NOT helping the owner of the property recover the property. You have trouble understanding that??????
Click to expand...

Oooh! WTF is wrong me?

Well, your overblown drama aside (complete with six question marks for full effect...), I know from experience that if you want to make sure that the lost property has any chance of getting back to it's rightful owner fully intact, you hand it over to the local authorities. Makes sense when you chew it over, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back