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
I disagree. The guy still had a responsibility, under the law, to turn that property over to either the police or the owner. What he ended up doing was the worse possible thing he could have done, which is he sold the device. I am not sure about when you say he contacted Apple and they made it appear they didn't want the phone back. I have not read that, nor do I believe that to be the case. if that was the case they would not have sent Gizmodo a letter wanting the device back. Either way this guy who sold the phone is screwed. Either civilly or criminally. One way or the other.
I'm interested in Apple news, rumors, and speculation. But I'm not interested in encouraging the theft of intellectual property, or the ruining of somebodies career to get that information.
If laws were broken or intellectual property rights were violated its time to call in the police and the lawyers.
If laws were broken or intellectual property rights were violated its time to call in the police and the lawyers.
Reminds me of an ******* manager I worked with at a retail store. He and a female part-timer found a wallet out in the mall. Had ID and everything. They pulled out the $200. Split it. And mailed the wallet back to the poor guy with a note "hey we found your wallet." They actually justified it by saying "if we hadn't done it someone else would have and they wouldn't have been as nice to mail back the ID and wallet."
As always, the opinions on this forum are LAUGHABLE! I love reading through this stuff and how intense the conversation gets, like anyone here has a personal stake in Apple's well being in some way.
Who really cares about this? There was no act of aggression here. It was a bad mistake by the loser of the phone and a bad decision by the finder. Let it be. In the long run, it won't matter one bit if we know some details (almost ALL of which we could have guessed already) about a new iphone 2 months early. Jeez..........
And I don't want my tax dollars spent on pursuing ridulous things like this.
Tony
I love reading through this stuff and how intense the conversation gets, like anyone here has a personal stake in Apple's well being in some way.Who really cares about this? There was no act of aggression here. It was a bad mistake by the loser of the phone and a bad decision by the finder. Let it be. In the long run, it won't matter one bit if we know some details (almost ALL of which we could have guessed already) about a new iphone 2 months early. Jeez..........
And I don't want my tax dollars spent on pursuing ridulous things like this.
Tony
I don't think the majority of people are mad about the leaked phone, but rather the way Gizmodo handled it. I personally loved seeing the new phone and stuff like that is exactly why I visit these sites. However, the way Gizmodo basically threw the Apple employee under the bus, I think is extremely lowball. I understand the phone was his responsibility, but Apple already was going to know who had lost the phone, that information including pics of his facebook and twitter, did not need to go public. It crossed the line from simply reporting new info on a gadget. Also Gizmodo basically seemed to be like a 6 year old kid saying "nah, nah, look what I have" while sticking out their tongue to Apple and everyone else. The law is the law and if Gizmodo broke it to obtain this phone and blatantly put video, photos and details of the phone, it is really on them to suffer the consequences, regardless of whether people enjoyed seeing the information. I might enjoy watching a police chase show on tv, but that in no way means that I support the criminal for breaking the law or think that they shouldn't be prosecuted because it entertained me. The same applies to Gizmodo.
Having worked in law enforcement, trust me, tax dollars are wasted on much, much smaller and unimportant cases.
Having worked in law enforcement, trust me, tax dollars are wasted on much, much smaller and unimportant cases.
You do not know anything more than the rest of us, plz do not spread bs unless you want to look like a fool.
Reminds me of an ******* manager I worked with at a retail store. He and a female part-timer found a wallet out in the mall. Had ID and everything. They pulled out the $200. Split it. And mailed the wallet back to the poor guy with a note "hey we found your wallet." They actually justified it by saying "if we hadn't done it someone else would have and they wouldn't have been as nice to mail back the ID and wallet."
I would have rather had the wallet than the cash. Most people would. So I agree with them.
Tony
Well let's see:
- Handling Stolen Goods
- Purchase of Trade Secrets
That's a good couple for starters, not knowing US law I can't comment too far. But is seems those are definite.
I've no problem with this. If I lose my wallet it's entirely my fault and it's gone forever. To get at least some of it back is absolutely fine. I wouldn't expect the cash to be there and would be grateful just to have it back with my cards and other paraphernalia. I'd hold no animosity towards the other party and in fact be thankful that they just returned it.Reminds me of an ******* manager I worked with at a retail store. He and a female part-timer found a wallet out in the mall. Had ID and everything. They pulled out the $200. Split it. And mailed the wallet back to the poor guy with a note "hey we found your wallet." They actually justified it by saying "if we hadn't done it someone else would have and they wouldn't have been as nice to mail back the ID and wallet."
I'd most certainly hand over all the cash is someone handed it back to me in person.
Good. Conspiracy, grand larceny, trade secret misappropriation... Between the criminal charges and the inevitable civil suit, this should be fun.
This is not illegal, Apple were stupid enough to lose the device, the issue lies squarely with them. Legally the original finder tried to return the iPhone, with hindsight he could have followed the avenues opened up by the investigation as examples of how to return the phone but thats hindsight.
He rang apple and was fobbed of as the call centre doesn't have any power to do anything (Apples fault for having crap call centres they never inform of anything)
Apple deactivated the phone, ive found a few in my life, in bars, out side of work. Ive always used the phone to ring "Dad" or "Mum" in the contacts as thats the best way to get in contact with someone close to the owner, but if the phone is deactivated that stops that.
Apples faults, dont shoot the messanger.
He rang apple and was fobbed of as the call centre doesn't have any power to do anything (Apples fault for having crap call centres they never inform of anything)
Apple deactivated the phone, ive found a few in my life, in bars, out side of work. Ive always used the phone to ring "Dad" or "Mum" in the contacts as thats the best way to get in contact with someone close to the owner, but if the phone is deactivated that stops that.
Apples faults, dont shoot the messanger.
As far as I understand UCC laws which work most everywhere, Gizmodo could not keep the stolen property and the money they paid for it might not be recoverable.
If someone stole a car and sold it a dealership, then that dealership sold the stolen car to you, that car can be reclaimed and you will be without any legal right to that stolen property.
I can't emphasize this enough, the iPhone was not the engineer's property. It's Apple's prototype-iPhone. What if Apple fired that engineer and someone returned the phone to him? Clearly that would demonstrate it was not his phone in the first place.
http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back
What happened to ethics?
Calling customer service is not likely to bring results. I really doubt any level of CS would know about the next gen iPhone or have a way to pass it to the proper channels( ie: Jobs himself). Thus why Apple didn't "respond".
I know. It's ridiculous. People complain about Apple's secrecy and spend their time on a rumors site for Apple, and then as soon as there's a leak, they complain that it's unfair to Apple
Selling lost property without doing enough to return it is not a leak, but stealing.
Didn't do enough to return the phone to rightful owner and then sells it makes it theft.
All he did was ask around( but not to the bartender or manager of the bar, but regular patrons) and called lowly Apple Customer service reps who would not know what to do with it. He did not turn it into the bar, he did not turn it in to police, and he did not try to contact the software engineer to return it even though he knew who had the phone. He did not do enough to return it.
It was "stolen"
For those who say it was not stolen, only found, take a look at California penal code 485 (IANAL, I think that's the correct designation).
I'd say that it being an iPhone that looked unlike any released iPhone caused them to realize it was a prototype, obviously belonging to Apple. Any reasonable and just effort to return it to Apple would have obviously worked - it's no secret they wanted this thing back. Also, our finder used the property for his own use, that being making profit by selling the property to Gizmodo. Our finder is, according to California law, a thief.
Code 487 goes on..
That's a bit to wrap my head around (<3 laws), but I believe that since the iPhone was valued over $400, that constitutes grand theft. Inb4 "they're only $299.99!", that's with subsidy from AT&T.
An iPhone is not a firearm, so it looks like our buddy will be spending 1 year in the state prison. Don't worry, he'll be out in time to find an iPhone 6G.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9
For those who say it was not stolen, only found, take a look at California penal code 485 (IANAL, I think that's the correct designation).
I'd say that it being an iPhone that looked unlike any released iPhone caused them to realize it was a prototype, obviously belonging to Apple. Any reasonable and just effort to return it to Apple would have obviously worked - it's no secret they wanted this thing back. Also, our finder used the property for his own use, that being making profit by selling the property to Gizmodo. Our finder is, according to California law, a thief.
Code 487 goes on..
That's a bit to wrap my head around (<3 laws), but I believe that since the iPhone was valued over $400, that constitutes grand theft. Inb4 "they're only $299.99!", that's with subsidy from AT&T.
An iPhone is not a firearm, so it looks like our buddy will be spending 1 year in the state prison. Don't worry, he'll be out in time to find an iPhone 6G.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9
As always, the opinions on this forum are LAUGHABLE!
Who really cares about this? There was no act of aggression here. It was a bad mistake by the loser of the phone and a bad decision by the finder. Let it be. In the long run, it won't matter one bit if we know some details (almost ALL of which we could have guessed already) about a new iphone 2 months early. Jeez..........
And I don't want my tax dollars spent on pursuing ridulous things like this.
Tony
Well some people do own stock in the company. So I guess they could argue that they do have a stake in the company.
Wow.
So you don't mind stealing as long as it's possible to have stolen more?
Just...huh...wow
Um, no.
You're really determined to show off your ignorance of the law, aren't you?
The problem with this logic is the bolded phrase above. The "owner" was not the employee, but Apple, Inc. When the person who found the phone contacted Apple and tried to return the phone, AND WAS REFUSED by the owner, doesn't that confer ownership to the party who tried to return the phone? Thus, he was under no obligation to return the phone to the employee, the bar, or report the lost property to the police. The OWNER of the phone, Apple Inc., refused to take the phone back.
Sometimes there really is right and wrong in this world. What they did was wrong. It was very simple to make the right choice here. They didn't do that. Neither person was hurting for money, starving, needing medicine. If you agree with what they did, then your parents didn't raise you right.
Yes! As would law enforcement in all 50 states, Canada and most of the civilized world.
If the judge asks him "why didn't you do these very obvious things?" and his only answer is "because I wanted to make $5,000" then that's not going to get him very far.
I can tell you WANT that to work, but it's not going to impress a judge.
" I am not sure about when you say he contacted Apple and they made it appear they didn't want the phone back. I have not read that, nor do I believe that to be the case."
I also missed that. Nor has it been demonstrated. Here's my new analogy: someone shows up at your door with a Macbook Pro that's obviously not his. He says, "I found this and called the owner and they said they didn't want it. WIll you buy it for $300?"
Would you buy it?
Now here's another question. The police hear that someone might have stolen a laptop from a corporation. That person claims they just found it. Their story is fishy. Would you want them to investigate?
What if it was YOUR laptop? Would you still be so sanguine? Would you prefer the police stop investigating a car theft as soon as someone says, "But I'm only driving this Cadillac because the owner left their keys on the bar and when I called them, they said they didn't want it any more!"
I also missed that. Nor has it been demonstrated. Here's my new analogy: someone shows up at your door with a Macbook Pro that's obviously not his. He says, "I found this and called the owner and they said they didn't want it. WIll you buy it for $300?"
Would you buy it?
Now here's another question. The police hear that someone might have stolen a laptop from a corporation. That person claims they just found it. Their story is fishy. Would you want them to investigate?
What if it was YOUR laptop? Would you still be so sanguine? Would you prefer the police stop investigating a car theft as soon as someone says, "But I'm only driving this Cadillac because the owner left their keys on the bar and when I called them, they said they didn't want it any more!"