So true. One wonders if the folks at Gizmodo consulted their lawyers before this little adventure.
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
So true. One wonders if the folks at Gizmodo consulted their lawyers before this little adventure.
There was nothing on the phone to say Apple was the owner. Only because the finder was knowledgeable about iPhones did he guess it was a prototype and then try to contact Apple instead of the guy who lost it. To a random person who found the phone and then found the guys Facebook page they would have assumed he was the owner and tried to contact him instead of Apple. Even Gizmodo asserts that they didn't know Apple was the owner until they took the thing apart. The only reason they got the letter from Apple is that they refused to give it back to them unless they got a letter specifically saying it was Apple's phone.
Also the assertion that Apple refused to take the phone back is absurd. The finder called customer service and was given a ticket that doesn't seem to be acted upon. Clearly it just seems the people in customer service didn't have any experience with this situation and dropped the ball, but nowhere have I read that they refused to take the phone back.
No, they should be pursuing more IMPORTANT crimes. Law enforcement and the judicial system have LIMITED RESOURCES. They need to make decisions daily on what to pursue based on importance and situations. Police don't arrest everyone who litters or goes over the speed limit by one mile an hour, although both are breaking the law. They make choices based on circumstance. Same should happen with this case - no real harm done here looking at the big picture.
Tony
In the grand scheme of things, this was the best thing to happen to Apple... the publicity they received on every major news outlet was beyond what could have happened with an actual ad campaign. Even my dad knew about the new iPhone coming out and he has never used a cell phone nor gone on the internet.
My gut tells me this whole thing was planned. The actions reported by the employee who lost the phone, the person who "found" it, Gizmodo, and Apple don't seem right to me. If Apple wasn't in on this I'd be surprised.
My gut tells me this whole thing was planned. The actions reported by the employee who lost the phone, the person who "found" it, Gizmodo, and Apple don't seem right to me. If Apple wasn't in on this I'd be surprised.
A ha ha ha
This is probably the best news ive heard all week.
Jason Chen is probably on the run already.
This is probably the best news ive heard all week.
Jason Chen is probably on the run already.
What would you expect to be different regarding these parties' behavior if the story was not 'staged' by Apple?
Yeah, that excuse is not going to fly in court.
I doubt even Dell's CS department would know what to do if I found a prototype Dell device and I called them to return it.
Since this is a criminal case coming from the police, I'm sure they have already contacted Apple to make sure that this wasn't a planned leak. I thought it was planned until this came up.
that article is all made up by gizmodo
the guy who stole the phone knew who the phone belonged too (he had his facebook page open). He had his name and all.
You Honor, you know i tried to call , but there was no signal.
You know i used a iPhone, then my Verizon's Blackberry persuaded me to sell it.
It is called Common Sense (sadly it is scarce):
We should be grateful that we have the opportunity to give. Social balance is up to the people who hold the wealth.
Yeah, crimes like this are unimportant unless they happen to you.
I consider the illegal sale of an item for $5,000 (and literally worth much, much more than that to the victim) to be a serious crime. I'm not sure where you draw the line between important and unimportant. Again, it probably depends on its distance from you personally.
I'd love to see your reaction if someone sold $5,000 of your stuff to someone else without your approval.
Perhaps you should permit the victims to assess the damage rather than Anonymous Internet Commenter Guy, hmm?
If you call the company and they turn you away when you are trying to return their product, what do you do?
I believe him calling apple to return it is a faithful attempt in the eyes of the court. It is not as if there are other numbers to call
Why he wasn't trasferred to higher ups?
Though I forgot about him knowing the guy. He should have contacted him as well
The reason for the post you replied to is, to place emphasis that the phone should've gone back to Apple; which it did. Many seem to argue that the phone should've gone to the engineer, I disagree.
So the decision to enforce the law rests upon whether or not harm was done? And that decision is in your hands? Please. "Harm done" is far too open to interpretation as is seen in this thread. In my opinion harm was done and further laws were broken.
If the law is broken the matter should be pursued, it seems there are laws that cover this so it should be pursued.
The finder was wrong from the start. It should have never left that bar. End of story. IF that would have happened, Powell would have been able to retrieve it quickly. Instead, the finder decided to remove property that was not his from the location it was lost.
Now, calling Apple. These people are not trained to deal with those matters (although that may change after this.) They don't know how to handle situations like that which is why he wasn't just transferred to the "higher ups."
If the rest of the story is true, then the finder knew that Powell was the "owner" of the phone and supposedly found his Facebook. Why did he not send a message directly to Powell notifying him that he/she was in possession of the phone?
Why the heck didn't the guy drive to the Apple campus, show and tell someone that he found the thing? I surely would have. And surely he would have been rewarded more heavily. To me, it seems the finder had this in my all along once he found out it wasn't an ordinary iPhone.
Guess what, it's not a "secret" anymore when you leave it in a bar for the whole world to see.
Apple is wasting everyone's time
First, there was no polish report for it being stolen. -1 Apple.
Second, Giz did pay for it on the idea it could be an Apple device. Split.
Third, Giz gave it back. +1 Giz
Morally and ethically, Giz is in the wrong. Legally, this is a dead end. Apple screwed up.
First, there was no polish report for it being stolen. -1 Apple.
Second, Giz did pay for it on the idea it could be an Apple device. Split.
Third, Giz gave it back. +1 Giz
Morally and ethically, Giz is in the wrong. Legally, this is a dead end. Apple screwed up.
If you call the company and they turn you away when you are trying to return their product, what do you do?
I believe him calling apple to return it is a faithful attempt in the eyes of the court. It is not as if there are other numbers to call
he never even sent them a picture of the phone. Which I'm sure would have gotten to someone who knew what he had. He did the least he could do to return it. He must not live that far from the Apple campus, why didn't he try to return it personally?
No need to get all up into it like that to both parties.
People are accustomed to thinking that if they find something its theirs to keep. It makes sense its natural and it happens everyday. But I think under the law (and I am not sure and it might vary from country to country), that this is in actuality, theft. If it doesnt belong to you the mere act of finding something doesnt consitute transfer of ownership of said property.
If we look at it another way cars that are parked would then be mine if i say hey it was on the street and I found it its mine. Not even if the window was open and there was a key in the ignition.
But that does go into the interpretation of law in California as to what constitutes theft in that instance according to American law and state law. Also if no money exchanged hands then I can see people arguing that it he was looking to find the owner and didnt get around to it. But now you are selling property that you didnt buy and just found.
Where I figure Gizmodo is, if someone buys somehting that is on the street does that consititue a crime if there is no legal proof of ownership title? What I mean is if i buy a laptop from a dude on the street for 100 bucks cause its a 2 thousand dollar machine and probably stolen. I am sure I am breaking the law. Even if the owner of the laptop lost it and this person selling it to me found it. We are both comitting a crime right? For that matter what if there is a storefront and the store is selling stolen property. Its not like we ask for a reciept of transations of how that property came into the hands of the store from the manufacturer.
I think Gizmodo is in trouble ONLY if Apple decided to pursue this. Will it be end the Gizmodo, probably not. But I can see a civil suit on them for a hefty sum saying loss of sales or rather some compitition law due to competition knowing about product details. Or some kind of corporate espionage (probably spelling that wrong) law.
People are accustomed to thinking that if they find something its theirs to keep. It makes sense its natural and it happens everyday. But I think under the law (and I am not sure and it might vary from country to country), that this is in actuality, theft. If it doesnt belong to you the mere act of finding something doesnt consitute transfer of ownership of said property.
If we look at it another way cars that are parked would then be mine if i say hey it was on the street and I found it its mine. Not even if the window was open and there was a key in the ignition.
But that does go into the interpretation of law in California as to what constitutes theft in that instance according to American law and state law. Also if no money exchanged hands then I can see people arguing that it he was looking to find the owner and didnt get around to it. But now you are selling property that you didnt buy and just found.
Where I figure Gizmodo is, if someone buys somehting that is on the street does that consititue a crime if there is no legal proof of ownership title? What I mean is if i buy a laptop from a dude on the street for 100 bucks cause its a 2 thousand dollar machine and probably stolen. I am sure I am breaking the law. Even if the owner of the laptop lost it and this person selling it to me found it. We are both comitting a crime right? For that matter what if there is a storefront and the store is selling stolen property. Its not like we ask for a reciept of transations of how that property came into the hands of the store from the manufacturer.
I think Gizmodo is in trouble ONLY if Apple decided to pursue this. Will it be end the Gizmodo, probably not. But I can see a civil suit on them for a hefty sum saying loss of sales or rather some compitition law due to competition knowing about product details. Or some kind of corporate espionage (probably spelling that wrong) law.
LOL. Buying that phone and then bragging about it to the world was probably the most boneheaded move any prominent blog/media source has ever made.
Truly amateur hour over at Gizmodo. I wonder how Chen and Nick Denton look in their fake Mario & Luigi mustaches?
So we should arrest everyone who goes 31 mph in a 30 mph zone - Correct? It's the same logic.
Tony
Contact the bar where it was located or contact the police? Plus we have no evidence the finder was "turned away". His inquiry understandably was never returned since CS is not empowered to have information on prototype devices nor can they represent the corporate arm of Apple.
Yeah, it's not like he was holding a directory of personal phone numbers for the owner's home, friends, coworkers, or...
Oh, wait...