Of course you could instead just leave it where you found it (not very neighborly, though). What you can't do is take it home and sell it.
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
Of course you could instead just leave it where you found it (not very neighborly, though). What you can't do is take it home and sell it.
What, and let the next Joe Shmo, pick up the proto JesusPhone and deny you of the geek credentials? NEVER.
Lets face it, Giz probably made the offer without haggling. That's major hits for expense account money, what amounts to little more than three grand in real money
D) is peanuts to Gawker.
Gizmodo paid for the phone. The added value of the phone because of its blog-worthiness is still a part of it's worth. An iPhone 3GS is worth more than $300 ($199 + estimated $300 to $400 subsidy), and a prototype is worth many, many times that. I would guess Apple would put it's value at tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
No. It doesn't make sense. It was an upscale bier garten, not a biker bar. The object is to get it back to the owner asap. You accomplish that by leaving it there so the person may return to recover it. Just like a purse or jacket. You have zero right to leave the premises with it. And if for some reason you still have the delusion that you are the owner's only salvation, you leave a way where you may be contacted in the immediate future. People are always reaching for their phones, and it shouldn't take very long for the person to realize it's missing, and know exactly where he set it down.
The value can be measured, among other things, by how much money Gizmodo made by publishing everything about it.
You have every right to hand it over to the Police, as opposed to a stranger you don't know beyond the fact that they are employed by the bar, common sense 101.
Only too true, as evidenced by the attention this thing has got for a relative pittance in cash
That's all well and fine, but once I left my 3GS at a local Moe's Grill. I left and went to a movie, then afterwards noticed it was missing. The FIRST thing I did was drive back to where I though I left it...Moe's. Sure enough, they had it in the back, and I walked out truly relieved. The point is, most people will return to where they lost it, I know I did.
No. Gizmodo would rather ruin the life of the guy who, at best, made a mistake, rather than the guy who decided to sell property that he knew he didn't own.
Nice one, it's a bit of a hassle to call have to call the your local dept of you can't find it in the venue you lost it in, but at least you know it's probably safe
Wrong. You have zero right. You have no right to even touch it, beyond handing it over to someone responsible in the restaurant. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. Turning it over to the police is what you do with a valuable object if you find it on the streets, not in a restaurant. ( If you turned a phone/wallet/purse/laptop into police and told them you found it in a restaurant, they'd just stare at you, shake their heads, and wonder why you would ever do that).
amazing how people are talking about whats required under law when all of us live in different cities, counties, states, and even countries
the law is NOT universal
the law is NOT universal
As if Apple didn't know who's phone went astray
Apple knew. But everyone else in the world didn't know, nor did they need to know.
Not in my jurisdiction, it would be lodged as found property, and stay there until it's rightful owner claimed it.
Cal. Criminal law requires using the "reasonable and fair market value" (see sec. 484), which is different from the value that the item had to Giz. Also, while it might be worth making that argument in a civil case where you were trying to recover a certain amount of money, all that matters in the criminal case is that the value was more than $400. Showing that this is the unsubsidized cost of an iPhone would probably be enough, although it would be better to get some actual testimony from Apple.
Right. California law is what applies.
"Common law" applies if there is no statute to the contrary. In California there is such a statute:
Regarding your claim that you can't take it to the police - you actually have to:
The fair market value of a phone which is not for sale at any price is much higher than the unsubsidized cost of a 3GS. In a fair and open market, what would such a phone cost? What would a chinese knock-off maker be willing to pay? Microsoft? Gizmodo?
None of those apply. A purse, phone, laptop, wallet left in a restaurant are not considered "lost" ( and therefore not "found".). They are deemed mislaid or misplaced. 5 minutes of research will confirm.
The statute doesn't say that, and I see no case law to the contrary. Can you cite a case or another statute that supports your position? (After all, I'm sure Gray considered it lost).
I'm on the east coast and I'm tired and not about to look anything up right now. But I assure you that my statement is accurate. That statute speaks in terms of duty and what's required. Does it really make any sense that the law "requires" a customer who finds something of value in a restaurant to go out of his way and take it to the police? No. The customer turns it over to management. That's how he fulfills his legal duty.
That's not what the statute says. It says the finder has to do that IF the finder takes the property. The finder is perfectly free to leave the property where he found it:
It's nice that you are assuring me that your interpretation of California law is correct. Although I am a licensed attorney in the state of california, I am not an expert on the topic of lost and found property (I only know what the statute says, and I did a quick review of the case law), so I am always eager to learn from someone who knows what they are talking about. I assume that since you are assuring me you are correct that you, too, must be licensed in this state?
Not a citation, but maybe this will help you with the distinctions:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...allet+in+restaurant&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us