Legality of Gizmodo's Next-Generation iPhone Acquisition Examined

[puffnstuff]

I don't buy that he tried to give it back one bit.

According to Gizmodo story

The person who ended up with the iPhone asked around, but nobody claimed it.

B.S the guy called the bar a bunch of times the owner stated nobody came forward w/ an iPhone.

During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times."

B.S who the hell plays with something with intention of returning it? It looked like a regular iPhone to him? Yeah, I guess that's why he went around to different blogs asking for 10K. The thing has a camera in the front he knew from the get go he had something major on his hands .

Apart from that, just six pages of applications. One of them was Facebook. And there, on the Facebook screen, was the Apple engineer, Gray Powell.

And this is when he saw dollar signs. He would have probably thought it was a knock off but once he saw it belonged to an Apple engineer he put two and two together.

Thinking about returning the phone the next day, he left.

He never told anybody in the bar he had the phone and never left his info

Bricked remotely, through MobileMe, the service Apple provides to track and wipe out lost iPhones. It was only then that he realized that there was something strange that iPhone.

B.S he knew the moment he saw an Apple engineers fb on it

He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.

So, he contacted customer service???? Clearly he has the internet and was able to e-mail bloggers. Why didn't he message the guy on FB?? Why didn't he leave his number at the bar? He had no intentions of giving it back anybody w/ common sense knows if you call customer service with that kind of story they aren't going to listen.

Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen.

B.S they knew it was a stolen iPhone no way they would drop 5k to check if it was real they contacted around to see if Apple was missing one and when they heard they were they dropped 5K for it.

so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner.

What a contradicting statement. They wanted to rip apart before giving it back to Apple yet they didn't know who it belonged to?


Both the guy who sold the phone and Gizmodo should be sued

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Bingo!!!

Gizmodo paid 5k for a device that "may" have been an apple device? They knew it was all along I assure you!

Kind of difficult to claim you thought something might be fake when you paid ten times market value of a real iPhone to obtain it. They knew what they had in their hands all along.

 

[nsayer]

why does the owner of the bar have any right to the phone?

if i'm in a Walmart parking lot and find 20 bucks sitting on the ground, am I supposed to give it to someone at Walmart to "give back to the owner"?

Apples != oranges.

$20 bills are fungible. Cell phones are not (at least not without replacing the SIM and erasing them, which is an act of conversion). Outside of a store that sells cell phones a reasonable person could not possibly conclude that if they find a cell phone that it did not belong to someone who probably wanted it back.

I found a phone once. In this case, it was a Verizon phone, so I took it to a Verizon store and gave it to them. If it were an iPhone, I'd drop it off at an AT&T store. The carrier is in the best position to determine who owns the phone, get in touch with them and get it back to them.

If you are unlucky, someone finds your phone, pulls out the sim card and sells it on ebay.

That person, by California state law, is a thief.

 

[satcomer]

I wonder if Apple not firing him is part of a legal strategy in a possible civil case against Gizmodo/stealer. The Apple engineer misplaced it, he called the bar several times to try and get it back, but it's been stolen; so, Apple can ask, "why would we fire a valued engineer whose device has been stolen from him after he misplaced/mislaid it and immediately attempted to retrieve it?"

I bet Gizmodo gets sued and I suspect the seller gets prosecuted.

Well criminal cahrages are going to fly because the Gray dude called the bar the next day looking for it “The guy was pretty hectic about it,...”.

To me the guilty ones is the guy who found it for not notifying the bar owners and selling it to so-called "journalists". Gizmodo is guilty of buying known stolen goods by California code.

 

[MacFly123]

Either Apple is going to sue them or they will put an invisible choke hold on them in various ways that we might never hear about, but SOMETHING is going to happen to Gizmodo/Gawker!!!

It will go down AFTER the iPhone launches because Apple won't want to draw any more attention to the phone!

 

[vastoholic]

...

 

[opticalserenity]

Another vote for theft. Law enforcement should definitely investigate this and charge the appropriate parties with theft of lost or mislaid property and purchasing stolen property. If we want Apple to make good products, we have to also aid in their protection of their intellectual and real property. As much as I love seeing pictures as the next guy, criminal law exists for a reason. Gizmodo crossed the line and I'd gladly write to the DA's office in hopes of prosecution.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Man, if I found this phone I'd return it to Apple ... as long as I got to hand it back to Steve personally just to see the expression on his face. Probably the only way I'd ever meet Steve face to face anyway.

 

[Christian247]

It's been said on here many times, position is 9/10 of the law; so yes technically. And I saw something in there about 60 minutes and an iPod test? Wasnt that with Chris Hansen, when he was doing How to catch a pedophile?

 

[swingerofbirch]

Apple has no motive to sue that I can see. 1) They are partially responsible for this leak. They are probably madder at themselves than Gizmodo. 2) If they truly want to minimize this leak, they won't sue and really blow this story up even more. 3) The law here is a very, very grey area. 4) They don't need the money. 5) They will come off looking bad to some people (maybe not the die-hard fans here).

 

[frankjl]

Well there goes that for apple engineers.

They had the privilege of actually toying around town with prototypes apparently.

But the new "Gary Powell act" will certainly halt any apple product to leave the premises EVER AGAIN!!!

So remember kids dont powell your gadgets. Keep em safe.

 

[Garion]

Here's the thing, though: Why would Apple sue someone over all this free publicity? I mean, really, all they are getting out of this is positive media coverage. Not only is everyone talking about it, but they are also in Apple's corner. They should just let it go, and be thankful for the free advertising.

I very much doubt Apple will see it that way, to put it mildly.
Screwing up a strategically important product launch, such as the 4th generation iPhone, is not something Apple takes lightly.

 

[saxamoophone]

Ok, don't compare this with just "somebody dropped a cell phone."

This was a super secret apple prototype.

While I don't agree with them giving $5,000 for it...

Gizmodo
A) Just took photos of it.
B) Gave it back to apple when asked.

Maybe the guy who found it should have returned it to the bar...
Maybe he should have facebooked the apple employee who lost it..

BUT

He did call apple.

But come on people. Did you really expect Gizmodo to just "turn away" and pretend it wasn't there?

Did Macrumors "not report the story" because it was gotten unethically?

Oh no, Macrumors ran like 10 stories on this. Does that make them ANY better?

If you wanted to be 100% ethical, the guy should have just taken the picturen, POSTED them on the internet for free, and then facebook the guy and return it to him.

But come on...you all act like this was "so awful." Nobody got hurt...except for the dumbass engineer who LOST A SUPER SECRET PHONE.

I work for a defense contractor. If I lost something equally as sensative, you know what? I WOULD BE FIRED AND THROWN IN JAIL. So don't feel sorry for the guy.

What is the big deal?

 

[BillHarrison]

The point I think everyone is missing, is that at this point, according to what I am reading in CA law, the phone IS NOT STOLEN.

I see only that the finder make a Reasonable attempt to return it to the rightful owner - which is exactly what happened. I see nothing in the law about HOW those steps are to be completed, or in what time frame. I also see nothing in that law about what can or cannot be done with the item while in ones possession. As a matter of fact, photographing and publishing the pictures would be a REASONABLE course of action in returning found merchandise.

IF I were in a similair situation I would have taken the item, and posted pics / etc on craigslist as well as several other reasonable places. Turning the item in to the bar owner / worker / etc in no way guarantees that the item will get any further than their pocket, and by all means it truly is "Finders / Keepers" if the owner cannot be found / contacted.

If reasonable efforts don't turn up the owner, I would assume the found property to be my own, again in accordance with the CA law that was posted.

As I see it, the found merchandise was returned to its rightful owner. What happened in between is in no way covered by the law posted, and photographing as well as distributing those photos could plainly be described as an attempt to FIND the PROPER owner, which in this case it appeared to do in spades

 

[AisEv]

I don't think I will pay someone 5K or even 500 bucks without knowing whether the item belongs to someone important in the first place. It's a great scoop, I give them that. I just wish that they could have spared the guy who lost it. Why reveal his identity and hide the finder's? Don't give us this journalism crap on protecting the source. The finder is not a good person simply because he did it for $$$$. Any decent human being would make an effort to return the lost item. Firstly, he'd have picked up the owner's calls, if any. Secondly, try to get to the PR or legal department of Apple. It's hard to get thru but it's not impossible.

 

[4nNtt]

Yeah, if someone dropped their wallet I would suredly take the money out and through the wallet in the trash. /s

Same damn thing!

I suppose that is why you are called MacBandit. A lawful citizen wouldn't do that. Wait a minute. Are you the one who stole the prototype?

 

[philbeeney]

nothing will happen

This.

Apple's engineer screwed up royally by "displacing" a company prototype phone in a bar after a few beers. You can bet he's been ripped a new arse by Steve and co and you can't blame Gizmodo for that.

 

[mchoffa]

If it had been me, and I saw that it was an Apple employee, I would have gone over there the next morning since it was right down the road, walked in the front door, and told them I had something very important that they might want back.... surely Steve would have been very generous to anyone not letting something like that slip out to the public... not that I would expect anything in return, but they'd be VERY thankful for turning it in...

 

[billchase2]

Honestly, I hope Gizmodo gets taken down for this. They approached the whole thing in a very douchey way and I'm still not convinced this wasn't a planned publicity stunt.

Regardless, I'm tired of hearing about it and wish it would just get dropped until Apple has their official event.

 

[smiddlehurst]

Gizmodo revealing the Apple employee who lost the phone, putting him through even more shame, was uncalled for, at least in my opinion.

I'm hoping one day to go to Gizmodo's site with a big "Site is closed" picture. That would be justice for me.

Yeah, I'm with you 100% on that one. They threw someone under the bus for no reason whatsoever other than to try and cover their own ass and make their story look better. Saying 'An Apple Employee' would have done EXACTLY the same thing without dragging someone who was already having a bad enough time of it. Worse, they're now trying to turn the guy's name into a f'n meme and seem to think it's funny.

Honestly, I was fine with Gizmodo getting the scoop providing it was legal of course but the way they've behaved (currently they're trying to paint themselves almost as war heroes for breaking the aura of invincibility over Apple's secrecy... or, uh, something equally bloody stupid anyway) is childish beyond belief as well as morally and ethically appalling. Really hope Apple go after them full force and screw the giz fanboys.

 

[jtara]

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.

In other words, it was stolen. Taking something that isn't yours = "stolen".

If it was left in the finder's car of home, that's a different situation. But it was left in the bar. A patron of the bar picked up the phone that wasn't his. He stole it.

You get into a cab and find a phone, take it with you without saying anything to the cab driver - you stole it. I don't see this any differently.

When I was a kid, I remember something like this happening at a party my mother went to. Some guest "found" somebody else's coat laying on the bed with all those other coats (LOL, remember those parties - before people had big closets?) and took it with them for safe-keeping. Caused a big stink.

 

[djdole]

Please Apple!! Sink the whole Gawker Network!!

Because they were dead wrong! The guy should have never removed the phone from the bar! Like the article said, you give it to the bartender... duh!!

In my eyes, it's like buying stolen goods.

...
"The guy" is unconnected to Giz, so why should Giz (or even their parent company Gawker and all the other great sister-sites like Lifehacker) be faulted for "The guy" removing it from the bar?
Ok it's sketchy as to the legality of the PURCHASE; but "they" and "The guy" are separate parties.
So "they" should not be held accountable for "the guy's" actions.

I for one don't want to see Lifehacker disappear. The site is WAY more useful than any mere 'rumor' site.

 

[brammp]

I don't expect the government to take criminal action but I expect Apple to take civil action. Our legal system allows for that and a jury of 12 people to decide the outcome.

The government has no position in this matter, hence they can't take criminal action.

 

[mr.steevo]

Hi,

How does it work when a pawn shop buys an item and it is found to be stolen? Do pawn shops get sued after the item has been returned to its owner?

I'm not being sarcastic.

s.

 

[bdkennedy1]

I do.

I just hope they don't suffer the same fate as Think Secret did..