3 ms·
IANAL but there is probably a legal divide between stolen merchandise and lost merchandise.
by brown9-2 17y ago
IANAL but there is probably a legal divide between stolen merchandise and lost merchandise.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoNot much of one. You'd need to prove that the merchandise was abandoned, not just lost. And you'd have to prove the finder did due diligence in locating the proper owner before taking ownership. Good luck with that in this case. If Apple had the inclination they could have Gizmodo's balls in a vice.
- Frazzydee 17y agoWhat if Gizmodo does its due diligence after the fact? ie. First take all the photos they need, then contact Apple
- protomyth 17y agoI think paying the money is the trigger point for some problems.
- jrockway 17y agoExchanging money doesn't mean exchanging ownership. If you pay an agency $10,000 to photograph a model, you don't own that model. Why would a telephone be any different?
- protomyth 17y agoBecause It doesn't sound like they paid for the photographs, it sounds like they paid for iphone
- anigbrowl 17y agoPer Gizmodo themselves, they got the phone and held onto it until contacted by Apple's Bruce Sewell who requested its return. Nick Denton has been quoted in several other news stories as saying he paid $5000 for it.
- billybob 17y agoI imagine Apple's lawyers can shred that ruse. As an expert site, they knew exactly how likely it was that this was lost (near zero), and they knew they could profit from its clandestine possession. Whether they give it back afterward is immaterial to Gizmodo's profits and to the secrecy Apple wanted to protect.
- zepolen 17y agoNot that I doubt what you said, but the 'due diligence' comment reminds me of this: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/89kto/student_finds_cellphone_turns_it_into_police/c08ml3e http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/89kto/student_finds_cel...