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

You are focusing on theft of "trade secrets" (as seems to be the case with Gizmodo). But you (and Gizmodo) are overlooking the simpler, more common crimes governed by California Penal Code Section 485 (theft of lost property) and Section 496 (crime of buying or receiving stolen property). Both of these crimes are felonies if the amount at issue is high enough (and the $5,000 price tag fits the bill).

And, by the way, OF COURSE the finder intended to deprive the owner of the iPhone - he SOLD it - he is required by civil law to turn it over to the police and by criminal law to make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property to him". In no area of the world - other than perhaps Marseilles - would the "reasonable person" not (i) turn the phone over to the bar tender with a note that the finder saw the NAME of the owner on his facebook page or (ii) turn it into the police. It is not reasonable, ethical or legal to pocket the item after a couple of half-hearted phone calls to customer service and then sell it to a third party.

And really Sclawis, what would YOU do if you found someone's BlackBerry, wallet or car keys? You'd actually KEEP them??? You'd actually SELL them?? NO reasonable person does that. CRIMINALS do that.
 
They knew the name of the Apple engineer....

They had the name of the Apple engineer - all they had to do was call.

Both Gizmodo and the guy who sold it to them should be criminally liable.

The story states that the finder knew the name of the Apple engineer because he saw it on the iPhone before Apple "bricked it" the following morning. All he had to do was call Apple and ask for this guy, or, as the article pointed out tell the bar owner how he could be reached.

The fact that he (and Gizmodo) knew the name of the Apple engineer makes this an open and shut case of theft and purchase of stolen goods.
 
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.

Apple won't sue Gizmodo in civil court.

However, if it is a criminal case, it is in DA's hands. DA makes the final decision, not Apple.
 
why didn't gizmodo simply pay for "the exclusive photos" and leave the phone with the idiot who took it. they really wouldnt be in anymore trouble than engadget or anyone else who have posted photos of the new iphone (although maybe ethically in trouble for paying for the pictures), and they would have left the legal mess in the lap of the other guy.
 
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.

Criminal law is an asymmetric proceeding where the defendant enjoys most of the rights and the state bears most of the burdens. (This is because the US constitution was set up to protect the rights of the accused in criminal cases and not to make both parties equal.) The effect of this is that a *defendant* would be able to introduce the civil statute as evidence to prove that his conduct was reasonable (assuming that he complied with the civil statute), but the state would be prohibited from introducing the same evidence to show that the defendant's action was not reasonable.

Aside from the words of the penal statute, there are two established (as a matter of case law and constitutional law) principles that come into play. The first is the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which holds generally that penal laws need to be written clearly enough that persons of average understanding can tell what is being prohibited. Void-for-vagueness cases include not just cases where the actual penal law is badly written, but also cases where the penal law seeks to encompass other parts of the law not clearly referenced in the penal law.

The second principle is kind of related - it's a canon of construction called the "rule of lenity," and it basically holds that if there is ambiguity in a criminal law, the ambiguity is construed against the state. (With the general idea being that if we are going to write a law that can result in someone being incarcerated, it should be unambiguous; also, the state is in the position to write a clear law).

This doesn't mean that principles from civil law never apply in criminal cases - motor vehicle titles are regulated in the motor vehicle code, but you can use a title to show ownership of an automobile in a criminal case, since that won't conflict with the penal law.

Re: civil issues - I didn't see a sanction for violating the civil statute, although there may be a general provision elsewhere in the code that would apply - I didn't really look for one. At the very least, though, violating the civil code would create a civil cause of action entitling the plaintiff to have his property returned, plus any damages.

In a civil proceeding for conversion, noncompliance with the statute would be dispositive of the ownership issue, although you would still need to prove that the item was converted and establish damages (if there aren't statutory damages).



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.
This is right, for the reasons I included in my above response - we won't throw someone in prison for turning the phone over to the bartender, even if that isn't the lost property procedure set forth in the civil code. Also, a civil suit for conversion wouldn't lie because turning the phone over to the bartender isn't converting it to your own use.

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.

This is correct. Note that in burglary and most common crimes, the state isn't required to prove that someone specific owned the house, just that the defendant didn't own it. (This is more of an aside, I suppose).
 
why didn't gizmodo simply pay for "the exclusive photos" and leave the phone with the idiot who took it. they really wouldnt be in anymore trouble than engadget or anyone else who have posted photos of the new iphone (although maybe ethically in trouble for paying for the pictures), and they would have left the legal mess in the lap of the other guy.

Because the finder wanted to sell the phone and gizmodo wanted to maximize their hits - photos alone wouldn’t have cut it - they needed the phone so they could do the teardown.
 
wow, America! You are really so stupid that you discuss THAT? You lost, you stupid, it's your problem, not the founder of the phone. Gizmodo give back the phone, payd some money for the founder and save the day! Everybody happy: the finder (he get 5k), gizmodo (they get attention) and apple with return lost phone.

It's so typical american, if you want to sue eatch other all the time :) it's just a phone, if it was important - apple would never allow to take outside.
 
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.

The relevant penal code section has been cited by me and several others throughout this thread and I really don't feel like doing it again. The crux of the matter is if the finder made "reasonable" efforts to return the phone. Reasonable may be difficult to define and might be an interpretation of facts left to a jury. Most "reasonable" people I know (from my informal survey) do not feel that calling the help desk at the persons place of employment constitutes a reasonable effort to return an item you found in a bar.

There is an interesting blog post linked somewhere in this thread that lists several relevant California precedents in criminal found property thefts that would indicate the guy is toast if a DA decides to prosecute. Finding lost property is not theft. Deciding to keep it is. He clearly showed both the value of the item and that he had no intention of returning it when he sold it for $5000.

There is also a relevant civil code that clearly defines the Civil requirements of someone who finds lost property. The person finding the phone clearly did not meet any of those requirements.
 
wow, America! You are really so stupid that you discuss THAT? You lost, you stupid, it's your problem, not the founder of the phone. Gizmodo give back the phone, payd some money for the founder and save the day! Everybody happy: the finder (he get 5k), gizmodo (they get attention) and apple with return lost phone.

It's so typical american, if you want to sue eatch other all the time :) it's just a phone, if it was important - apple would never allow to take outside.

Actually it is - the penal code of California (and most other states as well) has well defined expectation of what you can do with found items of a certain minimum value - and those laws says that if possible, you have to find the original owner and return it to them. if you don't - it's theft.

That's the law.

Here is all the details you need
.
 
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.

Apple won't sue Gizmodo in civil court.

However, if it is a criminal case, it is in DA's hands. DA makes the final decision, not Apple.

I don't think Apple will do anything either. Despite what the macrumors legal eagles say here, the court of public opinion matters a great deal. They will undoubtedly be viewed as an angry corporation attempting to sue someone for their mistake. Especially after getting the device back.

they should take steps to deter this sort of behavior in the future, but it comes with the territory for a highly anticipated device shrouded by a secretive corp. Im sure it wont impact future sales of the next generation iPhone. People comparing this to burglary and car theft are a bit over the top. My biggest problem with Gizmodo was putting the engineer on blast. That was uncalled for. But news/media organizations have been paying for stories for a long time now.
 
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."

You are making the assumption that there was a trade secret. There wasn't. A trade secret only exists if reasonable care is taken to keep the information secret.

If lets say an employee takes a secret iPhone to a bar, keeps it in a pocket, and has a heart attack, and while trying to help him I find the phone, then it is still a trade secret because the employee took reasonable steps to keep it secret (keeping it in his pocket) and couldn't expect to have a heart attack. It would be illegal for me to examine the phone or let Gizmodo have access to it.

If the same employee gets drunk and loses the iPhone in the bar, then it ceases to be a trade secret because he didn't take reasonable care to keep it secret. Anyone is free to take photos or have a look at it, as long as they don't damage the phone and don't keep it away from the owner.

And the same would be true if I stole the phone from his pocket. But if I find the phone, even if I keep it (which could be theft of a phone), it wouldn't be theft of a trade secret, because the trade secret dissolved into thin air when the phone was left in the clear lying on the table.

The crux of the matter is if the finder made "reasonable" efforts to return the phone.

Note the distinction between "theft of a phone" and "theft of a trade secret". Apple won't care very much about the value of the phone, they care about the trade secret (which IMO was gone when the phone was left on the table).
 
I've always heard that Steve was a big Gizmodo fan. He probably realizes that he would have done the same thing if he were in their shoes, and at this point, a lawsuit would simply anger the masses and make Apple look bad. Giz is a rather large pro-Apple site, and to tick off their millions of readers doesn't seem like the best idea. Especially since a lot of them are the early adopter type (or in correct marketing speak, "innovators"). Oh, I forgot, Apple loves ticking off that group! Yeah, expect a lawsuit!!

You think so? I disagree, as I would not have done the same thing, because it's ethically wrong. If the finder knew to contact Engadget and Gizmodo, then he knew that he had something he shouldn't, and should have done the right thing and given it to the bartender.
 
You are making the assumption that there was a trade secret. There wasn't. A trade secret only exists if reasonable care is taken to keep the information secret.

If lets say an employee takes a secret iPhone to a bar, keeps it in a pocket, and has a heart attack, and while trying to help him I find the phone, then it is still a trade secret because the employee took reasonable steps to keep it secret (keeping it in his pocket) and couldn't expect to have a heart attack. It would be illegal for me to examine the phone or let Gizmodo have access to it.

If the same employee gets drunk and loses the iPhone in the bar, then it ceases to be a trade secret because he didn't take reasonable care to keep it secret. Anyone is free to take photos or have a look at it, as long as they don't damage the phone and don't keep it away from the owner.

And the same would be true if I stole the phone from his pocket. But if I find the phone, even if I keep it (which could be theft of a phone), it wouldn't be theft of a trade secret, because the trade secret dissolved into thin air when the phone was left in the clear lying on the table.



Note the distinction between "theft of a phone" and "theft of a trade secret". Apple won't care very much about the value of the phone, they care about the trade secret (which IMO was gone when the phone was left on the table).

I disagree. I think Apple attempted to be sure that their trade secrets remained secret. They just let some guy who made a bad decision hold on to it. But it was not his trade secret to divulge so I think it is still a trade secret.

Testing needs to be done in the field so the phone has to be taken out. I would not want to have to read the stuff those guys have to sign before they take something like that out of the building.
 
And really Sclawis, what would YOU do if you found someone's BlackBerry, wallet or car keys? You'd actually KEEP them??? You'd actually SELL them?? NO reasonable person does that. CRIMINALS do that.

Indeed, rather simple isn't it? But there are some unbelievably stupid people on here, treating the theft and sale of someones physical property like it's another debate about filesharing.
 
What reasonable people do

Just for the record, I found a phone on the sidewalk once. It powered on just long enough for me to see it was working before the battery died. It was a Verizon phone, so I took it to a Verizon store. They said they'd find out whose it was and get in touch with them.

If I had found it in a bar, or a store or some other place like that, I'd give it to an employee to put in the lost-and-found.

Others have suggested that in this case a savvy employee of the bar would have sold it to Gizmodo instead, but the fact that others might not do the right thing is no excuse for you to not do the right thing yourself.
 
wow, America! You are really so stupid that you discuss THAT? You lost, you stupid, it's your problem, not the founder of the phone. Gizmodo give back the phone, payd some money for the founder and save the day! Everybody happy: the finder (he get 5k), gizmodo (they get attention) and apple with return lost phone.

It's so typical american, if you want to sue eatch other all the time :) it's just a phone, if it was important - apple would never allow to take outside.

First of all, lrn2english. If you're going to comment on the perceived stupidity of someone else, this is a must.

Secondly, it's a cellular device that *must* be tested in various places outside of the Cupertino campus...duh. It's called field testing, everyone does it.

And thirdly, this discussion is about Gizmodo and the legal implications of their actions involving the lost prototype unit, not what you personally think is "so typical american." That's another thread for another forum.
 
First of all, lrn2english. If you're going to comment on the perceived stupidity of someone else, this is a must.

Secondly, it's a cellular device that *must* be tested in various places outside of the Cupertino campus...duh. It's called field testing, everyone does it.

And thirdly, this discussion is about Gizmodo and the legal implications of their actions involving the lost prototype unit, not what you personally think is "so typical american." That's another thread for another forum.

And I am so sure you speak his language fluently...this is MacRumors and he has every right to speak his opinion just like you do...He did the best he could and got his point across.

Obviously you got yours across as well...get a life and quit beating up on people just cause they dont meet your standards.:mad::mad::mad:
 
And I am so sure you speak his language fluently...this is MacRumors and he has every right to speak his opinion just like you do...He did the best he could and got his point across.

Obviously you got yours across as well...get a life and quit beating up on people just cause they dont meet your standards.:mad::mad::mad:

I'm not beating up on anyone. :confused: I just failed to see how his post (filled with generalisations and stereotypes) was relevant to the discussion at hand.
 
I'm not beating up on anyone. :confused: I just failed to see how his post (filled with generalisations and stereotypes) was relevant to the discussion at hand.

...and your reply was any better??? Both of you represent a prime example of the "Ugly American". Two wrongs dont make a right. You should not have even replied if your were going to cut down his ability to write English fluently. You just lowered yourself to his level by criticizing instead of constructive reply. Of course this and other threads on MacRumors are full of this hate stuff, its as if no one can express an opinion here unless you are a Mac god, fanboy, or worshipper. Anyone else expressing their freedom of speech rights is belittled and cut down and no other thoughts are granted. I am just sick and tired of it and stated my opinion. Whether you are others like it, I could care less, but maybe some will change their ways and create thoughtful discussion in the future instead of being "Ugly Americans" or in this case "Ugly Mac Boys"
 
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.

Woah, lets not discuss the actual cold and hard reality of the situation here!

Remember that as far as some of these guys are concerned, this teeny little bubble is the entire universe, reality can take a back seat :D
 
Apple should be thanking Gizmodo for buying it. It could have ended up outside the country in which case they would never get it back. Gizmodo did them a favor and they should be reimbursed 5k.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.