Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined

[lewisdorigo]

You really think this? Really?

Maybe I ignore your points because they're a waste of time. Remember... you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people that the man DID NOT make a REASONABLE effort to return the item.

He called AppleCare - who probably get thousands of calls a day saying that they found an iPhone or whatever. That'll get him no where.

He asked a few people in the bar.

That is not reasonable effort.

What he should've done:

Phoned one of the contacts on the phone - He stated that it was the next day before the phone was wiped; ample time to phone someone.
Contacted Mr. Powell by facebook -he opened the facebook app and was able to give Powell's name to Gizmodo.
Handed it into police.
Sent the following email:

To: sjobs@apple.com
Subject: Found iPhone Prototype
Hey, Steve. I found this. I think it might be an iPhone prototype [a few pictures].

You want me to send it to you?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its a phone for pete sakes the fact that we make such a big deal out of it shows how the human race is so screwed up.

 

[ShiftyPig]

Wow, only in America could we endlessly split hairs on the legality of this entire event. Unbelievable.

Guy finds phone. Finds name of owner of phone on phone's Facebook app. Knowingly sells it to someone else who is not said owner.

Crime committed. Guilty as charged. Case closed.

It's not this difficult, people, regardless of what the ever-lurking trolls want you to think.

This entire thread would bring a tear of joy to Bill Clinton's eye.

No, it's that people are claiming that the losing of the phone was theft.

Next time, try reading... thanks.

 

[ct2k7]

I'm just going to leave it as that you probably don't understand the intricacies of the US court system, and hope that I'm right. I have law school finals coming up, I really don't need to spend my time educating everyone here.

Been in court to testify against someone who stole something a bit more precious than an iPhone.

 

[trrosen]

No, they are being quiet because this was a controlled leak.

You are just completely retarded. No one would leak information by dropping an entire phone randomly in a bar. And it happened over month ago BEFORE the iPad release. Apple would not have let this out when its putting its energy into the iPad release. Why build hype for a product months away from release and distract from a product launch thats only weeks away.

Just like you its stupid and makes no sense.

 

[Seward Johnson]

"So?" - No - Sue.

1) They can easily argue that it was not known that it was stolen
2) Who cares, they didn't damage it.
3) They again can easily argue that they needed to verify it was a legit Apple product first. There were reports during the week that it was a Chinese fake.
4) So?
5) Again, So? They asked for a formal request so they could have a record of the request instead of just a phone conversation. Not a big deal.

Apple isn't going to do anything other than possibly change their policies regarding who/how products can be taken off campus in the future.

Suing Gizmodo or the guy who found it would not be in Apple's best interest at this point. The information is out there and can't be taken back with a lawsuit. Its done. They are getting a huge amount of press over this. While it might not be the way that Steve would want to introduce the phone to the world, its still publicity. Lastly, if it is shown that the guy had an open ticket with Apple and had tried repeatedly to get in touch with someone at Apple, no judge is going to throw him in jail....please. Suing would just be BAD press for apple.

I don't know whether it would be in Apple's best interest to sue or not, but it is certainly in the best interest of the People of California for the District Attorney to prosecute felonies - especially when they are publicly confessed.

To answer your points above briefly:

1. They cannot argue that they didn't know it was stolen. Why not? Because they admitted on their website that they knew it was found in a bar, that they recognized it as a prototype, and that they had so much confidence of its provenance that they were willing to pay 15 times the market value for a new, not lost in a bar, iPhone.

2. Who cares, they didn't damage it. How does that defense work for a car thief after the car is recovered without a scratch. Or for the trespasser who breaks into your house, but only watches TV. And, by the way, if you actually took a moment to look at the Gizmodo site - they DID damage it. They took it apart. If you or I did that to our purchased iPhones - guess what - the warranty would be voided.

3. They can't easily argue that they needed to take it apart to verify. Especially when they could have taken it back to the bar (investigative reporters that they are) and found out in 2 seconds that the poor Apple tech had been calling non-stop to find it. If your point were correct, you could also "easily" argue that to verify whose Porsche keys you found in a bar, you had to go to the parking lot, open the only Porsche in the lot, take it around for a spin, and disassemble it in your garage to determine who owns it.

4. They profited - you say "so?" How about I find the final draft of the novel you've been working on for 4 years in a bar. How about you copyrighted the material you wrote. How about I publish your novel for all to see and make money off of it? Haven't I deprived you of at least some sales? Haven't I unjustly enriched myself? So?!?

5. Nothing wrong with asking for a formal request. But it begs the question of why they didn't ask before they purchased it, ripped it open and published confidential information. Moreover, they had no right to the device in the first place. Give it to the police - wait 6 months - it's yours.

Would you have less sympathy if it was the publisher of Motor Trend Magazine who acquired an unreleased BMW concept car from someone who "found" the car on the side of the road? Would you keep saying "so what?" or would you think that Motor Trend was guilty of Grand Theft Auto?

 

[marksman]

No the bar owner said he never said a word to him, realize what ur saying.

Also, when the guy realized it was missing why didnt he try to call it? That is the first thing anyone does who looses their phone....

Umm he probably did. Which gives more credence to the fact the guy stole it.

See if you are not stealing a phone and the owner calls it, you answer it and make arrangements to get it back to them. If you steal it you don't answer it because you want to steal it.

Your point just adds more evidence that it was stolen. Phone records would likely prove he called it many times. The issue of intent came up in another thread, there is some pretty good proof of intent right there. Taking a phone that is not yours and then ignoring incoming calls and then claiming you tried to find who owned it. BS.

 

[ShiftyPig]

If you find someone's wallet with identifying information inside (e.g., driver's license), and cash or credit cards, you shouldn't spent the money, and you shouldn't sell the wallet to others. You should return it immediately to the owner. I've returned such things to their rightful owners several times over the years.

Why didn't the guy who found the iPhone just return it to Apple or to its owner after looking up his ID? I don't understand his motivation in selling it to Gizmodo. I think he should have returned it directly to its owner or to Apple.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.....

But finding the wallet is not theft.

We aren't debating the sale of the phone..... it's that there are a constant, lemming-like flow of FB's saying that the initial acquisition of the phone was theft. It wasn't. Nobody here seems to have the IQ to be able to differentiate between the events.

 

[LagunaSol]

Armored Truck? Compared to a FOUND Iphone prototype wraped in a pseudo 3GS skin?

Same difference from a legal perspective.

What is your defination of "reasonable" effort? To me, he contacted and called all the proper people HE knew of.

Any half-wit knows when you find something at a place of business, you report it to someone who works at said place of business. Because obviously that's the first place the person who lost the item is going to go.

So the finder was either a quarter-wit or a thief.

I'll bet you rationalizers wouldn't make the arguments you're making if the item lost and sold was something that belonged to you.

Also the question is what did apple do to get it back? what did the engineer who lost it do to find it?

Irrelevant to the legality of the finder selling it. He knew the identity of the owner. Yet he sold the item anyway. That's a crime.

I think the point is there is no case, too many holes, too many assumptions.

The holes and assumptions are imagined by anyone who can't see the situation in a rational light.

After all, Gizmodo gave the phone back. It was not theft on Gizmodo or the finder.

The finder sold something that wasn't his, even though he knew the identity of the owner. That is theft.

Wow, no wonder we have so many criminals roaming the streets if some of you people serve on juries.

 

[baryon]

I just don't understand how this guy was allowed to carry around a top secret prototype iPhone just like that. Aren't these devices literally nailed down to a table, in a room with super-security and red lights and stuff to avoid the device being even seen, not to mention removed from the room? I'm sure this guy didn't steal it from the Apple campus, he was surely allowed to use it in his everyday life, but why? Is that what they call "field testing"? This whole story is just so strange, how could he forget his super secret prototype on a bar stool? I mean come on, drunk people do that with their normal phones, no big deal, but he should at least have had a sense of responsibility. Or just not take this phone with him if he goes out drinking. And who is this guy? Just some random Apple employee, or some super-serious scientist straight from the development labs?

 

[troop231]

You are just completely retarded. No one would leak information by dropping an entire phone randomly in a bar. And it happened over month ago BEFORE the iPad release. Apple would not have let this out when its putting its energy into the iPad release. Why build hype for a product months away from release and distract from a product launch thats only weeks away.

Just like you its stupid and makes no sense.

Get a damn grip. The point is it wasnt random, Gizmodo got a hold of it from some middle man most likely appointed by Apple to make sure it got in tech hands. Majority of other people wouldn't know what to do with it.

 

[LagunaSol]

No, it's that people are claiming that the losing of the phone was theft.

Next time, try reading... thanks.

No, selling the phone was theft.

Next time, try thinking... thanks.

 

[sportguy0913]

If you find someone's wallet with identifying information inside (e.g., driver's license), and cash or credit cards, you shouldn't spent the money, and you shouldn't sell the wallet to others. You should return it immediately to the owner. I've returned such things to their rightful owners several times over the years.

Why didn't the guy who found the iPhone just return it to Apple or to its owner after looking up his ID? I don't understand his motivation in selling it to Gizmodo. I think he should have returned it directly to its owner or to Apple.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.....

Apple probably would have given him a reward for turning it in that was worth more than $5000! They probably would have given him a computer, an iPhone if his own, an iPad, an iTouch, etc.

 

[blindzero]

But finding the wallet is not theft.

We aren't debating the sale of the phone..... it's that there are a constant, lemming-like flow of FB's saying that the initial acquisition of the phone was theft. It wasn't. Nobody here seems to have the IQ to be able to differentiate between the events.

Finding a wallet is not theft. Not turning it over to the police or the manager of the place you found it and walking out of the building with no intent to contact the owner of the wallet.

Sure it's not robbery...but it is theft. He took it without the original owners consent.

 

[ShiftyPig]

No, selling the phone was theft.

Next time, try thinking... thanks.

I never said it wasn't. I was refuting the people who said the original acquisition of the phone was theft.

Shame you can't even come up with your own (even misplaced) sarcasm. Variety is good in all aspects of life. Your wife will thank me for giving you that tip.

Idiots are more fun than schoolwork tbf.

 

[SiskoKid]

The fact that there's still debate just means some Gizmodo employees are in here trying their best to put out this fire lol.

Otherwise, I don't know what Apple WILL do. I just know what Apple COULD do. And I'd hate to be Gizmodo or the phone thief if Apple decides to pursue this issue.

It'll just be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Good luck, Giz and phone thief

 

[wovel]

How on earth does this article state that the iPhone was stolen? I thought it was lost, the finder asked around in the bar, and then sold it to Gizmodo.
Lost doesn't necessarily equate to stealing. But yes, when Gizmodo pays $5000 for something that they don't know is authentic? And a seller contacts them to sell it, I think the finder AND Gizmodo were pretty sure of what it was. And was the Video made explaining it was the new iPhone BEFORE it was disassembled?

Apple has the ability to route the call as necessary. There are four Apple phone numbers on the website. Should he have called the Apple Store? Jobs' house? I trust you have Jobs' number, yeah?

Point out the number he should have called.

Apparently the original finder tried to find the owner. In this case, it's unclear to me whether it constitutes theft. I'm just saying whether it does or does not, it was shady -- so we are in partial agreement here.

Again, again, again for yet another effing time - Apple has the ability to route the call. You think you're going to make better progress requesting an "expert" call than AppleCare and saying you need to return something? Apple thought it was a hoax so they didn't route him to talk to anyone else.

And again, for only the second time this time, you come to the word reasonable. Reasonable effort. A reasonable person would call Apple - duty fulfilled, whether you like it or not.

What is the relevant definition of theft here? I'm an English law lawyer so can only comment if English law applied here - I agree that if he had sold it it would satisfy the 'intention to permanently deprive' element of the English law definition of theft (which I understand is also relevant to the case in hand). Selling it to someone else is as clear as you can get that you yourself intend to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property - regardless of whether the person you sold it to made assurances to you that they will return it to the rightful owner.

What's the dishonesty requirement under relevant law? Under English law we need to show dishonest appropriation - which is where lost property cases like this sometimes fall down because it turns on what efforts were made to return the lost property (which seem to be where the majority of arguments on this thread have focussed). I know under English law you can leave lost property with a Police station and go back for it if it has remained unclaimed for a few months - from which point onwards you can do as you please with it including selling it. No theft because there was no dishonest appropriation.

If the laws applicable to this prototype iPhone are equivalent then it is not as clear a case of theft as some on here would like us to believe it is.

Armored Truck? Compared to a FOUND Iphone prototype wraped in a pseudo 3GS skin?

What is your defination of "reasonable" effort? To me, he contacted and called all the proper people HE knew of. Maybe he is not a nerd or techie like us to know who, where to contact apple.

Also the question is what did apple do to get it back? what did the engineer who lost it do to find it?

I think the point is there is no case, too many holes, too many assumptions. After all, Gizmodo gave the phone back. It was not theft on Gizmodo or the finder.

No, it's that people are claiming that the losing of the phone was theft.

Next time, try reading... thanks.

In the state of California, reasonable efforts to return found property include turning it over to the owner of the property where it was found or turning it over to the local police department. As a person in the state of California, the thief had a responsibility to know this. He did not do either of those things, so it is a theft. He proved he never intended to do either of those things by selling it to a third party for $5,000.

Losing the phone is not theft.
Finding the phone is not theft.
Finding an item with a value over $100 (he knew it was valued that much, he sold it for $5000) and failing to take the steps required by the laws of the state is in fact theft.

The guy stole the phone, not when he found it, but when he failed to turn it over to the appropriate authorities in a reasonable period of time. He closed the window on reasonable period of time when he sold it to someone else. He is a thief. There is no question. If he gets prosecuted is another matter entirely. Based on the information we have (published by Gizmodo for reasons no one will ever understand) and the law in California , he stole it. It is difficult to imagine how anyone over the age of 8 can believe otherwise.

 

[Prof.]

The person who found the iPhone, the owner of the Bar and Gizmodo should all face criminal charges. Just my opinion.

 

[ct2k7]

Idiots are more fun than schoolwork tbf.

Likewise, it's been fun talking to you instead of reading about allotropic and sympatric speciation.

Help yourself by educating us what you know. It works, I'm teaching weapon handling to cadets. I've improved my handling and knowledge of the weapons I deal with.

 

[Penicilin]

Well if Apple doesn't do anything chances are this was indeed a controlled leak. If it does well.. THey should! This all thing is just terrible! It kills all the excitement about the new phone and the sales will suffer big time omho..

 

[rwilliams]

Well if Apple doesn't do anything chances are this was indeed a controlled leak. If it does well.. THey should! This all thing is just terrible! It kills all the excitement about the new phone and the sales will suffer big time omho..

You serious, Clark?

Its a phone for pete sakes the fact that we make such a big deal out of it shows how the human race is so screwed up.

Can't really disagree with this.

 

[dgree03]

No, selling the phone was theft.

Next time, try thinking... thanks.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen

 

[ShiftyPig]

Likewise, it's been fun talking to you instead of reading about allotropic and sympatric speciation.

Studying inbreeding... hmm, knock me down with a feather.

 

[BaldiMac]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen

Seems to fit.

 

[LagunaSol]

I never said it wasn't. I was refuting the people who said the original acquisition of the phone was theft.

Shame you can't even come up with your own (even misplaced) sarcasm. Variety is good in all aspects of life. Your wife will thank me for giving you that tip.

Idiots are more fun than schoolwork tbf.

Then you are flailing at a strawman and looking foolish in the process (and neglecting your schoolwork, of which you are in dire need).

I'll be sure to let my wife know how much you've enriched my life by heading to my Ignore list. Your nonsensical mutterings took this thread off the rails and into the next county about 200 comments ago.