Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined

[alhedges]

Not a huge leap at all. The civil statute says that you can't keep lost property - you MUST turn over anything valued at over $100 to the police within a reasonable period of time. The only way you avoid this obligation is if you choose NOT to take the lost property into your possession. The "finder" elected to do so. He could have given it immediately to the bar - and then they would have the obligation. He definitely didn't turn it over to the police - he kept it and showed the absolute intent that he wanted it to be his by selling it. If he sold it for $399, he might be facing a misdemeanor, but he established the felony value of $400 or more by selling it for $5,000. Keeping it and selling it violate one penal code listed above; acquiring it as Gizmodo did appears to violate another.

Maximum liability is a year in jail under the applicable California statutes - although it might have been less if he didn't value it at $5,000. If he kept it and thought it a regular sub-$399 phone, he would have been liable for a misdemeanor charge.

Sorry, but it's not a crime to fail to comply with a civil statute. That's why it's called a "civil" statute. Complying with the penal code requires making a reasonable effort; what is reasonable is up to the jury. It doesn't matter what a civil statute says.

This is a *basic* fundamental principle of criminal law and of (US) constitutional law.

 

[Master Chief]

So now the story starts to be funny.

<Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode ON>
Dude. I know you are the one who wrote the fake "gimme back" letter. You always type two blank space characters after each period and punctuation mark except commas. Nobody else does this (not even a personal secretary of a high ranked officer ). Please compare (keep in mind Mac Rumors' posting and auto-quotation engine obviously deletes redundant blank spaces, go directly to Master Chief's posting and hit "Quote" button—you'll see it in the editor):

...

</Sarcasm, irony and wannabe Sherlock Holmes mode OFF>

Sorry. I am in no way involved with this letter. There is however a good reason for the double blank spaces... but it is up to you [wannabe Sherlock Holmes] to figure it out. Just ask Bruce... he only knows.

Good luck!

 

[BaldiMac]

Sorry, but it's not a crime to fail to comply with a civil statute. That's why it's called a "civil" statute. Complying with the penal code requires making a reasonable effort; what is reasonable is up to the jury. It doesn't matter what a civil statute says.

This is a *basic* fundamental principle of criminal law and of (US) constitutional law.

But in context, the civil statute does help to define the reasonableness of the efforts to return the property to its owner as required in the penal code.

 

[Master Chief]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened.

Most likely not, no, but it are examples only.

And I hate theft and illegal activities, but knowingly calling someone a thief in a [moderated] forum, without actually having factual knowledge about this specific case [I only know Gizmodo's story/explanation] is simply not right. That is all what I have issues with.

 

[Seward Johnson]

Sorry, but it's not a crime to fail to comply with a civil statute. That's why it's called a "civil" statute. Complying with the penal code requires making a reasonable effort; what is reasonable is up to the jury. It doesn't matter what a civil statute says.

This is a *basic* fundamental principle of criminal law and of (US) constitutional law.

You are right that the violation of the civil code is not a crime. But the civil code defines what is and what is not ownership. It is thus intertwined with the criminal code which in no event grants ownership of the property to the "finder". As for what is "reasonable", complying with the code can reasonably be inferred to be the most reasonable standard, because it is required under law. But I agree that it would have been "reasonable" to hand the phone over to the bar as it would have equally served the purpose of Apple finding its phone and would be what the "reasonably prudent person" would have done.

The civil code, by the way, defines ownership of real property and the methods of showing it's yours. The penal code about burglary doesn't define such ownership, but you can rest assured that if you burgle a house that you cannot plead that the owner didn't own it because it wasn't defined in the penal code.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Sorry, but it's not a crime to fail to comply with a civil statute. That's why it's called a "civil" statute. Complying with the penal code requires making a reasonable effort; what is reasonable is up to the jury. It doesn't matter what a civil statute says.

This is a *basic* fundamental principle of criminal law and of (US) constitutional law.

I was curious about this. In a California criminal jury trial would the civil statute be admissible as evidence of reasonableness? Would the judge's charge reference the civil statute, or is it akin to the reasonableness charge in a civil negligence case? Is there any sanction for violating the civil statute? In a civil proceeding for conversion, is non-compliance with the civil statute dispositive?

I'd very much appreciate your views.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Letterman is a comedian. Forgive me if I don't take much stock in his top ten lists.

I didn't say letterman is trying to make my argument. I said its getting lots of exposure over this. Letterman's list is an example.

 

[pdjudd]

I didn't say letterman is trying to make my argument. I said its getting lots of exposure over this. Letterman's list is an example.

Still what does that prove? Nothing. News journalists have no more insight as to Apple's marketing initiatives any more than you or I do. Most reasonable people who havee real expeerience with Apple's leaking procedures are fairly confident that Apple does not do that. Unless you can prove otherwise and provide solid hard proof of a smoking gun, we have to reject any other theory outside of what multiple news sources have confirmed - that this was an accident. Where is your contrary proof?

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Still what does that prove? Nothing. News journalists have no more insight as to Apple's marketing initiatives any more than you or I do. Most reasonable people who havee real expeerience with Apple's leaking procedures are fairly confident that Apple does not do that. Unless you can prove otherwise and provide solid hard proof of a smoking gun, we have to reject any other theory outside of what multiple news sources have confirmed - that this was an accident. Where is your contrary proof?

Proves the event got coverage which is my point. People are hearing about it. People who aren't so tech savvy and who haven't been thinking about the iphone.

If, and I mean if, they did this, it's brilliant. No one would believe it was on purpose because so many people are familiar with their "leaking procedures".

 

[pdjudd]

Proves the event got coverage which is my point. People are hearing about it. People who aren't so tech savvy and who haven't been thinking about the iphone.

It got coverage because that was Apple - that proves that Apple doesn't have to engage in risky PR stunts that they cannot control just to get attention - they do that pretty well already.

Simply put that is not proof of anything more than what we already know about Apple - your theory goes against what we know about Apple. ANybody who knows Apple PR (like Andy Ihnako, John Gureber, Harry McCracken, pretty much the entire staff at Macworld Magazine, even our own forum provider Arnold Kim) is certain that this is not a PR stunt for the same reasons I and others have cited - Apple doesn't need to do this - they have the press at their call already.

 

[sclawis300]

Give me a break

Maybe all you "lawyers" can tell me how this is at all stolen property???? It was lost property, not stolen.

from the CA Penal Code:

"Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:

(1) Steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a trade secret."

Did the original "finder" of the phone intend to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner?

If any of you people think the guy who lost this thing is the owner of it then you are sadly mistaken. It is property of Apple. WHO DID THE GUY CALL WHEN HE FOUND IT.....APPLE. I think it is pretty clear that he did not "intend" to deprive anyone of the phone.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

It got coverage because that was Apple - that proves that Apple doesn't have to engage in risky PR stunts that they cannot control just to get attention - they do that pretty well already.

Simply put that is not proof of anything more than what we already know about Apple - your theory goes against what we know about Apple. ANybody who knows Apple PR (like Andy Ihnako, John Gureber, Harry McCracken, pretty much the entire staff at Macworld Magazine, even our own forum provider Arnold Kim) is certain that this is not a PR stunt for the same reasons I and others have cited - Apple doesn't need to do this - they have the press at their call already.

I'm not saying there is proof. I'm saying if they did it on purpose it was a pretty slick move. And if they did do it, they wouldn't let many people in on it. Because on one hand you have people arguing that they know Apple's methods. It wouldn't work if it was obvious.

Either way, my stock in Apple is doing pretty good. Pretty, pretty good. I'm not wagering on whether this was PR or not.

 

[charliehustle]

forget about legal laws, it all comes down to this. Apple will not look like "the good guy" if they sue Gizmodo. That's bad PR for Apple just because one of their OWN employees ****ed up.

 

[pdjudd]

Did the original "finder" of the phone intend to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner?

He sold it to Gizmodo before waiting the pertinent time period and did not have explicit notice that it was abandoned and did not contact the police after retrieving a product valued over 100 dollars.

So yes.

 

[pdjudd]

forget about legal laws, it all comes down to this. Apple will not look like "the good guy" if they sue Gizmodo. That's bad PR for Apple just because one of their OWN employees ****ed up.

This thread is all about the legal problems - unless you are a moderator you don't get to decide the topic of discussion...

 

[charliehustle]

This thread is all about the legal problems - unless you are a moderator you don't get to decide the topic of discussion...

it wasn't an order, but sorry that you feel so offended.

You can start a thread about the legality of pigs flying, but will it happen? no..

But you're free to discuss this pointless topic for another 24 pages.

 

[tbrinkma]

Maybe all you "lawyers" can tell me how this is at all stolen property???? It was lost property, not stolen.

...

Did the original "finder" of the phone intend to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner?

If any of you people think the guy who lost this thing is the owner of it then you are sadly mistaken. It is property of Apple. WHO DID THE GUY CALL WHEN HE FOUND IT.....APPLE. I think it is pretty clear that he did not "intend" to deprive anyone of the phone.

Hello, he *SOLD* it to Gizmodo. I'm pretty sure that demonstrates intent to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner, whom he knew to be an *Apple* employee. If you don't see it that way, I'll sell your car to somebody else. After all, that wouldn't be stealing according to you.

 

[charliehustle]

Hello, he *SOLD* it to Gizmodo. I'm pretty sure that demonstrates intent to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner, whom he knew to be an *Apple* employee. If you don't see it that way, I'll sell your car to somebody else. After all, that wouldn't be stealing according to you.

you don't like reading or what? In the post you replied to, the guy said the dude who found the phone "tired to call apple about it" and they gave him fake numbers because they didn't take him seriously.

 

[LagunaSol]

And I hate theft and illegal activities, but knowingly calling someone a thief in a [moderated] forum, without actually having factual knowledge about this specific case [I only know Gizmodo's story/explanation] is simply not right. That is all what I have issues with.

We do have factual information, provided by one of the parties in the affair (Gizmodo). And those facts clearly show an illegal act. If the finder knew the identity of the owner yet sold it to someone else without the owner's consent, that's all you need to know. It's theft.

Of course it's difficult to slander someone when you don't even know his name. The right thing to do, since they splashed the loser's name all over the Web, is to reveal the name of the finder. Then we'll see who comes out on top, legally, between Apple and missing phone fence.

Maybe all you "lawyers" can tell me how this is at all stolen property???? It was lost property, not stolen.

I think a reading comprehension tutor may be more suitable for your needs, as the definition you posted clearly shows theft occurred in this instance.

Hello, he *SOLD* it to Gizmodo. I'm pretty sure that demonstrates intent to deprive or withhold the phone from the original owner, whom he knew to be an *Apple* employee. If you don't see it that way, I'll sell your car to somebody else. After all, that wouldn't be stealing according to you.

Indeed. Talk about open mouth insert foot. He made an argument and then copy/pasted a statement that completely refuted it.

The lack of rational thinking in this thread is mind-boggling.

 

[rdowns]

Give it a rest already. This isn't the Waiting for Arrandale thread people.

 

[ct2k7]

If any of you people think the guy who lost this thing is the owner of it then you are sadly mistaken. It is property of Apple. WHO DID THE GUY CALL WHEN HE FOUND IT.....APPLE. I think it is pretty clear that he did not "intend" to deprive anyone of the phone.

Imagine this:

I work at an office. We have a maintenance department. The air conditioning is broken. I am calling security dept. to fix the air conditioning.

He called AppleCare, a subsidiary under Apple, not directly Apple.

 

[SFC Archer]

Broke Engineer, in debt and must pay bills or lose something, conveniently visits bar on birthday as cover story and misplaces concealed to look like 3G classified, top secret prototype iphone. Goes back to bar and to implace cover story asks bartender and says please call me. Does not attempt to call, locate or talk to individual who supposedly stole phone before it is "conveniently" wiped to protect cover story.

Second player comes conveniently along at the right time and place, picks up the prototype and knows immediately what this gadget is and knows to call tech gadget people who just throw 5K out into the world. To create a cover story, half attempts to find owner, logs on to facebook account to show he knew who it was and complete the engineer's cover story. Finder helps validate and strengthen engineer's cover story.

Source (gizmodo) that pays big bucks takes a bunch of pics, tears apart, takes more pics, splashes all over the internet with advertising, makes back lost 5K + more. Returns to Apple a day later after doing what it needs to over a 24 hour period.

Discretely, second player splits 5K with engineer or engineer receives 5K secretly and cover story holds.

Apple fanbois pick up the story and accuse everyone of breaking the law and should receive death penalty helps to draw focus away from Engineer and accuses Gizmodo and "Thief" who is never known helping to draw all suspicion away from conspiracy.

Engineer pays is behind debts, no records of deposits, cover story holds, sits back and laughs as second player and gizmodo take the fall and 25+ pages of how the "thief" and Gizmodo are all bad boys and terrible molesters of Apple fanbois while those same apple fanbois are practically having orgasms over all the new look and asking questions about if there is this or that now on the one hand and biting off the hand that brought all the news to them on the other.

 

[sclawis300]

you don't like reading or what? In the post you replied to, the guy said the dude who found the phone "tired to call apple about it" and they gave him fake numbers because they didn't take him seriously.

Charlie, Thank you.


Try to sell my car if you want. It is titled, and you don't have the keys. Pretty sure you would have a hard time claiming that I lost my car since it moves every day to different locations.

If Apple really wanted it back then they shouldn't have bricked the phone. They could have called it and said "hey, this is our phone, please return it." If he had then said "No" then game over.

 

[sclawis300]

We do have factual information, provided by one of the parties in the affair (Gizmodo). And those facts clearly show an illegal act. If the finder knew the identity of the owner yet sold it to someone else without the owner's consent, that's all you need to know. It's theft.

Of course it's difficult to slander someone when you don't even know his name. The right thing to do, since they splashed the loser's name all over the Web, is to reveal the name of the finder. Then we'll see who comes out on top, legally, between Apple and missing phone fence.



I think a reading comprehension tutor may be more suitable for your needs, as the definition you posted clearly shows theft occurred in this instance.



Indeed. Talk about open mouth insert foot. He made an argument and then copy/pasted a statement that completely refuted it.

The lack of rational thinking in this thread is mind-boggling.

HE HAD NO INTENT!!!!!!!!!! reading comprehension....check.

just because he later sold it does not change that. Also, I would make the argument that once it was wiped it was abandoned. If I lost my phone I would call it every day, 20 times a day.

 

[ct2k7]

HE HAD NO INTENT!!!!!!!!!! reading comprehension....check.

just because he later sold it does not change that. Also, I would make the argument that once it was wiped it was abandoned. If I lost my phone I would call it every day, 20 times a day.

Wipe != abandoned

Wipe = proctection of private data. Standard security within a corporation.