Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined

Gizmodo may skate in the end. But whoever the guy is the sold the phone is screwed. Once this person sold the lost or misplaced property that didn't belong to him, he became officially f**cked. And if there was any money received by the seller he will be doing jail time.

Just to add:

Gizmodo basiaclly took advantage of an idot. They probably are laughing their a$$es off right now. I hope the person who sold the phone to Gizmoda has a good lawyer, because he is going to need one.

Also for those people who keep saying that the phone was lost and found and the person had a right to just take it and do whatever he wanted to do with it. Uh no. Just because you find something on the street or in a bar doesn't give you the right or the authority to appropriate that item for your own use and if you try and sell that item you are even further screwed. It is called Theft by Conversion or Theft of lost or misplaced property. It may be under a different name from state to state, but every state has the same kind of laws. It is to keep people from taking items that don't belong to them and then saying that they found it.

Think of it this way. If you gp to a movie theater and the lady in front of you leaves her purse in the theater and you decided to wait a few minutes and then take it. You are committing theft. Finders keepers doesn't apply in big people world.
 
SpectatorHere said:
but I find it difficult to imagine that Gizmodo had any obligation or duty to Apple to keep it's secret iPhone 4 secret once Apple left their phone in a bar.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Gizmodo had no right to purchase the phone, hold it for a week and then proceed to act as though they had rights to it. All without trying to determine its proper origin after paying 5000 dollars under the presumption that they buying a prototype.
 
Takeo said:
Personally... I would never give it to the bar owner.
Click to expand...

Then you would be guilty of theft. If you find a phone on a bar you have two legal options give it to the bar owner or wait for the owner to return. If you walk out the door its theft.

If you were in line at the grocery store and the person in front of you walked out and left his wallet on the counter would you even think about picking it up and putting it in your pocket?
 
pdjudd said:
I have seen no requirement that a police report has to be filed - the finder is not fulfilling his responsibilities under the law.

If you can find a statute that requires a police report being filed, please point it out, but every legal citation that I have seen applies to the finder and not the looser and in this case the looser is acting under the presumption that the item he lost will be returned. It stays that way until the finder acts improperly.

ETA: What seward says.
Click to expand...

I posted the applicable statute above. Once the finder takes the lost property (which he does not have to), he acquires a duty at law. One of those statutory duties is to bring the property to the police within a reasonable period of time and file a police report stating the particulars of how he found it. There is no similar requirement for the owner to file a police report.
 
What Gizmodo did is perfectly legal.

They bought an item, it ended up being Apples phone, they give the phone back and have no phone and they are out $5,000 dollars.
 
claus1225 said:
Here is my take on this whole fiasco.

No one should be blamed or sued or fired.

1. For Apple, most people seemed to like the updated version and I'm sure it will sell like crazy in 2 months. So what's the problem? this is analogous to movie co-stars dating before the movie release. It will only drive up the revenue. Furthermore, this incident pretty much overshadowed all the HP slate and new droid news.

2. For Gizmodo, it is hypocritical to read their discovery with such enthusiasm and then criticize their approach. Would anyone actually prefer that they did not the iphone 4 pictures? (whether you like the updated version or not) This is analogous to tabloid news. They exist because we want them to exist. To criticize them is like criticizing yourself.

3. For Gray Powell, c.f. 1. Let those who have never misplaced their belongings cast the the first stone. There are far greater sins than losing a prototype iphone after drinking German beer on your birthday.

And yes, I liked the updated version.
Click to expand...


Oh, you are so wrong. Justice is supposed to be blind, my friend (well, we know the truth of that). A crime is a crime - and whether we enjoyed reading the Gizmodo forensics and back story is neither here nor there. This isn't kiddie porn, and we the viewers aren't guilty of a crime. We didn't receive stolen goods - Gizmodo did. We might have ethical lapses, for viewing those stories, but not criminal lapses.

Considering the news that the iPhone has become over 40% of Apple's profits, this is a BIG deal, and sets a precedent. Do you really think it's OK for someone to publish your company secrets, prior to a product being released? Yes, a lot of people think this actually went well for Apple, but the precedent is awful and will backfire more times than it will ever benefit. This kind of theft and publish model needs to get nipped in the bud.

And what Gizmodo did to the poor (stupid/young) schmuck who lost the phone is really beyond the pale. They didn't have to personally ID him - they just had to state that they verified that the person who lost the phone is indeed an Apple developer working on the iPhone team. Newspapers used to do this all the time ... but I forget, those pesky newspaper 'reporters' usually had ethical training and editorial oversight. I'd like to see how you would feel walking the halls of Apple after being outed in such a public way. This is why all those nutty Chinese Apple factory workers keep committing suicide ...

Learn what 'ethics' means. It will matter to you someday, I guarantee it.
 
trrosen said:
Then you would be guilty of theft. If you find a phone on a bar you have two legal options give it to the bar owner or wait for the owner to return. If you walk out the door its theft.
Click to expand...

Not exactly - it all depends on intent. If the situation was that I found a phone, forgot to turn it in, and found it on me the next morning after consuming beer in said bar, it’s not theft if I make an honest effort to identify the owner - part of that action would involve going to the bar to speak with a manager and hand it over. In my book, that is just fine, I was not intending to deprive ownership. Heck, assuming I forgot the name of the bar I have several options for returning an expensive item, and under no circumstances would I assume that I have any rights to the item until several months had passed (in CA, Apple has 3 years). If I found an item that presumably is worth several hundred dollars (even if it was less)I would do whatever I can to make sure that my possession of it would constitute theft.

Lets assume for a second that Apple had filed a police report or that Grey filed charges that the phone was stolen and it was not clear that was not the case - anybody possessing it could be charged with theft - even the finder - If I find something I want to make darn sure that I do whatever I can to make sure that there is no way that my possession can be construed as theft because I have no idea what the intentions of the owner are.
 
SpectatorHere said:
I think the problem is that lawyers, like me, and those with some legal background recognize just how complicated this stuff gets. Talking turkey, Apple didn't have anything stolen, at best, they were deprived of the right of physical possession for a few weeks. Apple always retained best title and right to possession. Apple never even lost the most important rights, the IP....which will allow them to sell a bazillion of these. The finder is not going to be prosecuted. What I think most of you are arguing about is what other commentators have pointed out is under the law of trade secrets. I haven't studied trade secrets since law school, but I find it difficult to imagine that Gizmodo had any obligation or duty to Apple to keep it's secret iPhone 4 secret once Apple left their phone in a bar.
Click to expand...

Spectator - Read the statutes I posted above. I think you will come to a different conclusion regarding whether the iPhone was stolen. And think of the stolen car example - if someone "found" your car and drove it around and sold it - you would still have "best title" to it, and the right to get it back. But it would still have been stolen. You should also re-read your trade secrets texts - it is a separate issue from the criminal conduct, and Gizmodo is not an innocent party here - they purchased a stolen iPhone for the purpose of disseminating trade secrets. Once they were published and no longer secret - the other media outlets who re-published are probably in the clear. But not Gizmodo.
 
Cartaphilus said:
"the government has no interest in the matter" no criminal charge may be made--all points of view that have been expressed in these very forums.
Click to expand...

This story has received national attention. Thats like cocaine to local DAs. And you know how lawyers love cocaine. Charges will be filed by somebody. Or there will at least be a very public investigation with press conferences.
 
I think Gizmodo thought that this was a neat replica iPhone and just wanted to check it out and maybe sell the ideas to Apple :D
 
WalterNeff said:
"Nick Denton of Gawker Media, Gizmodo's parent company, claims that the authenticity of the device was in question until they had purchased and disassembled it, and notes that they intended to return the device to Apple if it was verified to be an Apple product."

I offer to sell you anything that resembles a cell phone for $5000—even a suspected Japanese or Chinese iPhone knockoff—you can bet that it's not my cell to sell. Gizmodo's defense makes no sense.
Click to expand...

lol then do it?

Do you have any idea how much money Gizmodo makes? They probably make near $5000 a week just on ads. It's peanuts to them and they took the risk.
 
How it's done in NYC

For those who don't think that law enforcement takes this seriously, look at what the NYPD do on a regular basis in the Subways. Note that they only arrest those who clearly try to convert the lost goods to their own, but the "finder" of the iPhone did much worse.


BY TRACY CONNOR DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Thursday, December 6th 2007, 2:08 AM

The*NYPD revealed*Wednesday its Operation Lucky Bag stings have snared nearly 300 people - many of whom had no rap sheet before they fell for the ruse.

Since the start of the year, there have been 100 arrests as a result of the decoy operations, in which an undercover officer "drops" a wallet, iPod or cell phone in a subway station and cops pounce after it's picked up.

Police said 58 of those busted had rap sheets, while 42 had clean records.

There was a similar breakdown in 2006, when 188 were arrested. The NYPD said 101 had prior arrests while 87 did not.

Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne defended the program, saying since it began, subway grand larcenies - theft of more than $1,000 - have been slashed by half.

"Operation Lucky Bag has something to do with it," he said.

He said straphangers are arrested if it's obvious they had no intention of returning the property - for instance, if they pocket the cash in the wallet.

For almost every person busted, there was a good Samaritan who actively tried to return the wallet to the undercover who dropped it moments before or to a nearby uniformed officer.

Browne said people who picked up the wallet but did not remove the cash were stopped, frisked and checked for outstanding warrants and released.

Photographer Carlos Alayo - whose story appeared in the Daily News*Wednesday - fell into that category when he found a wallet at Grand Central last week.

He surrendered the billfold to cops who grabbed him but was still frisked and asked for ID for a background check.

Browne said there was $21 in the wallet; the NYPD does not use credit cards, which would raise the charge to grand larceny
 
I'm skipping the quotes. I have one issue with the entire debacle. Why was the seller's name withheld, yet, the owner's not? The destruction video was hilarious anyway. Bloggers are NOT true journalists. Keep pretending they are. A blog site is still a web log. Simple. Schadenfreude. Karma. Whatever.
 
A business or citizen may file a CRIMINAL complaint against another business or citizen. The business or citizen doesn't need any government "permission" to FILE a criminal complaint. Once the complaint is filed, it is the district attorney's job to decide if there is enough justification and evidence to pursue criminal charges.

The theft of trade secrets is serious business. People go to jail for less. I fully expect Apple to seek both criminal and civil penalties against Gizmodo and "John Doe" (the person that stole the phone). And Apple will prevail.

Mark
 
No way did the finder make a reasonable attempt to return the phone. It's been reported that he saw the guys facebook page that had his name and that he worked at Apple. At that point it's real simple. Call Apples switchboard and ask to speak to the Gray. Duh. That would have taken 5 minutes max.
 
iPhoney:) said:
I just hope they don't suffer the same fate as Think Secret did..
Click to expand...

I think that is the path that they chose when they purchased the phone. Gizmodo was thinking with $$ in their eyes not common sense. Apple is not going to be very forgiving.

Even if this device is not an actual device that was release, Apple is likely in my opinion to take action and have every right to do so.

If Apple does not take action, this will happen again.
 
AtlasBoy said:
No way did the finder make a reasonable attempt to return the phone. It's been reported that he saw the guys facebook page that had his name and that he worked at Apple. At that point it's real simple. Call Apples switchboard and ask to speak to the Gray. Duh. That would have taken 5 minutes max.
Click to expand...

Or he could have given it to the bartender or given the bartender his contact info. 30 seconds Max. Thats where the fail is. Any reasonable person would assume the owner would contact the bar looking for his phone and that giving it to the bar or telling the bar you "found" it would be the most logical, obvious and expedient way to return it to its rightful owner.
 
I hope Apple sues.

Personally, I hope Gizmodo and the initial finder gets hit with fat lawsuits. It bothers me to no end the way everyone feels they have an entitlement to Apple's and other's ideas and property. Where I come from, when someone loses a phone, and you have that phone, with their number in it, you call them and make an effort to return it immediately. The initial finder is an idiot and a scumbag for not going to the Phone App and calling some of his Recents to find out who owned the phone and get it back to him.

If you don't like the iPhone, don't buy it and go elsewhere. If you don't like the fact that they are secretive in advance of their products, then don't buy them and go elsewhere. If you don't like the fact that Apple doesn't support Flash on the iPhone, then don't buy Apple and go elsewhere.

Apple should be respected for running a great company to a huge success and making many, very happy customers. Both the initial finder and Gizmodo should have done the right thing and returned the product, which everyone knew that Apple wanted to keep secret until launch day.

Gizmodo and Gawker are a bunch unethical brats.
 
I'm confused:

Guy finds phone. Guy tries to return phone. Guy is blown off as a kook.

Guy contacts tech blog. Tech blog, not sure but fairly confident in item purchases said item.

Tech blog, not sure as to the authenticity of said item dissects said item to prove/disprove authenticity.

Tech blog realizes authenticity, realizes the amazing implications of item, and does their job. When asked to return said item by owner, tech blog complies.

What blows MY mind is, how can anyone sit there and say "poor Apple"?! They're not some innocent mom and pop business, they are a large corporate industry. The may lose a few iPad sales, but there is no such thing as bad press. You can rest assured that they'll use this to hype up the truly revolutionary next gen product (from the looks of Giz' teardown) which the iPad IS NOT.

Hell, if Apple plays their cards right and simply laughs this off humbly [and PUBLICLY goes really easy on the poor kid who lost the thing in the first place] it'd probably do tons for their public image.
 
Sanity

Bill&Rose said:
This case would go nowhere, first off the person who found the phone, FOUND IT, did not steal it, he waited to see if the guy would come back, he did not return looking for the phone.

Second, he then tried to give it back to Apple and they played dumb like they knew nothing about it. That is strike two against Apple.

Third, You can't charge someone with stolen property when you lose something. That is strike three against Apple.

When Apple contacted the web site, they returned the phone. I highly doubt Apples wants to get embarrassed in court by the judge for this BS case.

End of story.

This whole phone deal was a plant, Apple did this on purpose for publicly.

Pretty sad if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Thank you, finally someone on here who doesn't have Apple colored glasses on.

I want to know what Arn would do in Giz's position
 
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